Charles Haddon Riley Murray

The applicant creditor sought a bankruptcy order against the respondent debtor based on his personal guarantees of corporate indebtedness totaling over $10 million.

The debtor opposed the application, arguing the guarantees were invalid because his employee signed them without his knowledge that they were personal, and that the corporate receiver's misconduct caused the shortfall.

The court found the guarantees valid and enforceable, noting the debtor's carelessness in authorizing the signatures without reading the documents.

The court concluded the debtor owed at least $1,000 and had committed an act of bankruptcy by ceasing to meet his liabilities generally as they came due.

The bankruptcy order was granted.

The plaintiff, acting as Trustee in Bankruptcy, brought a motion for leave to serve an originating process on a defendant located in the United States pursuant to Rule 17.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and for an extension of time for service.

The action sought to recover funds transferred by the bankrupt to his wife as transfers at undervalue or preferences under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the plaintiff established a good arguable case for a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the claim, as the bankrupt was an Ontario resident and the bankruptcy proceeding was in Ontario.

The court granted leave for service ex juris and extended the time for service, finding no prejudice to the defendant.

CBRE Limited appealed the Proposal Trustee's disallowance of its claim for a real estate commission against the debtors, YG Limited Partnership and YSL Residences Inc. The limited partners of the debtor opposed the appeal.

The court held that the limited partners lacked standing under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to challenge the claim.

The court also determined that the appeal should proceed as a hearing de novo to prevent injustice, as new evidence supported the claim.

The court allowed the appeal, finding clear evidence of the commission agreement and its performance, and awarded costs to CBRE and the Proposal Trustee.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement regarding a motion for leave to amend a notice of appeal in a bankruptcy matter.

The moving parties had sought to add an alternative request for leave to appeal under s. 193(e) of the BIA.

Due to the moving parties' lengthy delay in applying for the amendment without reasonable explanation, and the court's need to address concerns about the material filed by both parties (ultimately striking portions), the court ordered that both the moving parties and the responding party bear their own costs of the motion.

The appellants, Adamson & Associates Inc. and John Adamson, brought a motion to amend their notice of appeal to add an alternative request for leave to appeal under s. 193(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The original appeal relied on sections that did not require leave.

The motion judge granted the amendment despite the appellants' lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay, finding no prejudice to the respondent, Brian Wayne Flight, and noting the merits of the proposed leave request.

The decision also addressed the striking of inadmissible and non-compliant affidavit material filed by the responding party, emphasizing strict compliance with evidentiary rules for serious allegations.

The court determined costs following a motion where it was held the plaintiffs did not require leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to bring an action against the defendant.

Both parties sought excessive costs and made submissions exceeding the court's page limits, focusing improperly on the merits of the action rather than the procedural motion.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the costs decision was stayed pending appeal under s. 195 of the Act.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for direction on whether they required leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to continue an action against their former trustee in bankruptcy.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty against the trustee in his personal capacity for failing to detect a bookkeeper's fraud.

The court held that leave was not required because the claims were against the trustee in his personal capacity and involved alleged acts of omission, which do not fall under the s. 215 leave requirement.

This case involved two motions within a bankruptcy proceeding.

The bankrupt, Dennis Wing, sought to lift a freeze direction imposed by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) on his registered retirement saving plan (RRSP) and locked-in retirement accounts (LIR), arguing they were exempt assets under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The OSC, in turn, sought a declaration that a monetary penalty and costs ordered against Wing for violating a cease trade order (CTO) were not claims provable in bankruptcy, allowing them to enforce the claims post-discharge.

The court dismissed Wing's motion, finding the freeze direction served a purpose given potential opposition to his discharge.

The court granted the OSC's motion, applying the three-part test from AbitibiBowater and Orphan Well Association, concluding that the OSC was not a creditor, the obligation was not incurred before bankruptcy, and the claim's monetary value was too speculative at the date of bankruptcy.

The court also found that a subsequent settlement agreement superseded an earlier undertaking by the OSC regarding enforcement.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim against the respondent by way of summary judgment.

The claim arose from a management buyout of Xtreme Labs, where the appellants were directors and shareholders.

The respondent had been engaged to provide a valuation of the company, which the appellants alleged significantly undervalued the business, causing them loss.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the engagement letter excluded any duty of care owed to the appellants in their capacity as shareholders.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis of the engagement letter, the evidentiary burden, or the appropriateness of summary judgment.