Carlos Sayao

The appellants appealed an approval and vesting order that authorized a receiver to sell a property in receivership.

One of the appellants, a second mortgagee, sought to redeem the first mortgage or be recognized as a successful creditor bidder, arguing an absolute right to redeem under the Mortgages Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motions judge's decision that the right to redeem is qualified once a court-approved sales process has been undertaken in a receivership.

The court emphasized balancing the right to redeem against the integrity of the court-supervised sales process, finding no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the sales process was fair and the balance favoured its integrity.

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion for an approval and vesting order (AVO) to sell a real estate development property to a third-party purchaser.

A second mortgagee and joint venture participant brought a cross-motion to redeem the property or, alternatively, for approval of its credit bid.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that allowing a redemption after a court-approved sale process had concluded would undermine the integrity of the process.

The court granted the receiver's motion, holding that the proposed sale satisfied the Soundair principles, as the receiver acted providently, considered all stakeholders' interests, and conducted a fair and commercially efficacious process.

The plaintiffs in a class proceeding sought approval of the long-form and short-form notices to be distributed to affected class members following a previously approved settlement.

The court approved the notices, finding them to be in plain language and clear regarding participation and opt-out procedures.

The court also permitted the notices to be distributed in English only, as the defendant only provided services in English.

The applicants and respondents, involved in a joint venture for a condominium development, experienced an irrevocable breakdown in their relationship.

Both sides agreed the property should be sold but disagreed on the mechanism: the applicants sought the appointment of a receiver, while the respondents sought a signing officer with limited powers.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver to conduct the sales process, concluding that a receivership would not stigmatize the property and that the receiver's powers could be appropriately tailored to consider existing offers.

The Applicant, Alberta Cricket Association, sought costs after successfully setting aside an arbitration award.

The Respondent, Alberta Cricket Council, argued that costs should not be awarded or should be significantly reduced, contending that the applicant's success was on a narrow procedural ground (lack of reasons) and that the hearing was unnecessarily lengthy due to multiple grounds raised.

The court rejected these arguments, affirming that normal costs principles apply to successful appellants, regardless of the number of successful grounds, and awarded the applicant the full amount of costs sought.

The applicant, Alberta Cricket Association, applied to set aside an arbitration award that granted provincial sport organization status to the respondent, Alberta Cricket Council.

The arbitrator had concluded that the respondent demonstrated effective control of organized competitive cricket in Alberta, replacing the applicant as the member of Cricket Canada.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application and set aside the award, finding that the arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons for her decision as required by section 38(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

A new arbitration was ordered.

The plaintiffs in a putative class proceeding regarding a cyber-breach of the defendant's computer systems sought approval of a notice plan for a proposed settlement.

The court approved the notice plan, which included direct notice to known affected individuals and indirect notice via press release and social media, finding it maximized breadth while minimizing costs.

The court ordered one amendment to include the Zoom link for the upcoming settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of COLD-FX products, alleging that representations that the products were 'proven by science' or 'clinically proven' to reduce cold and flu symptoms were false and misleading.

The court found that the plaintiff met all the requirements for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court held that the claims under the Consumer Protection Act, the Competition Act, and for unjust enrichment disclosed valid causes of action, as reliance is not required for these claims.

The court certified the class and the proposed common issues against Bausch Health Canada Inc. and Valeant Canada LP, finding that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The plaintiff, Robert Drynan, brought a motion to approve a third-party litigation funding agreement in a class action against Bausch Health Companies Inc. and related entities, alleging misleading marketing of COLD-FX® products.

The court addressed the defendants' objections concerning security for costs, litigation autonomy, overcompensation, and access to justice.

After amendments to the funding agreement to cap recovery for the funder and class counsel at 33.3% of proceeds and defer court approval for certain expenses, the court approved the agreement, finding it fair, reasonable, and conducive to access to justice, while protecting the defendants' interests.

The plaintiffs, three Russian cyclists, sued the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Richard McLaren for damages, alleging they were falsely implicated in a state-sponsored doping scheme and wrongfully excluded from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had exclusive jurisdiction and that the action was an abuse of process.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that the essential character of the dispute fell within the broad arbitration clauses of the Olympic Charter and the athletes' entry forms.

The court also held that the action was an abuse of process as the plaintiffs were attempting to re-litigate a dispute they had already brought before the CAS.

The plaintiffs, three Russian cyclists, sued the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Richard McLaren for damages related to their exclusion from the 2016 Olympic Games.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to dismiss or permanently stay the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process, and to strike the statement of claim against McLaren.

The court found that resolving the jurisdictional issues would require extensive fact-finding, including assessing conflicting expert opinions and credibility, which exceeds the scope of a Rule 21 motion.

Consequently, the Rule 21.01(3) motions were ordered to be reconstituted as Rule 20 summary judgment motions or a trial of issues, and McLaren's Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion was deferred.

An appeal from a trial judgment concerning fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit.

The respondents invested over $1 million in a company controlled by the appellant Gardiner, who misrepresented that the company owned and controlled valuable intellectual property (patents, trademarks) when in fact Gardiner personally maintained control.

The trial judge found Gardiner liable for deceit and awarded damages of $2.2 million.

On appeal, the court upheld the finding of deceit against Gardiner but reversed the finding against Armstrong (his wife), reduced the damages award to $1.25 million plus prejudgment interest, and remitted the matter for an accounting of profits earned during the respondents' operation of the business.

The plaintiffs in a securities class action brought a refusals motion seeking production of draft reports, correspondence, and invoices from the defendants' expert witness.

The expert had retained his own independent legal counsel to assist in researching and drafting his affidavit.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the expert's consultation with his own independent counsel did not compromise his independence or impartiality.

Applying the principles from Moore v. Getahun, the court found that absent a factual foundation showing improper influence, the draft reports and communications were protected by litigation privilege.