Chris Reed

The court-appointed Receiver brought a motion to approve a marketing and sale process by tender for undeveloped commercial property.

The respondent debtor brought a competing motion seeking an order directing the Receiver to accept a specific offer from its financial backer.

The court approved the Receiver's proposed process, finding it fair, transparent, and commercially reasonable, and dismissed the debtor's motion, noting the proposed process would optimize the chances of securing the best possible price for all stakeholders.

The applicant brought an application within an ongoing oppression remedy proceeding seeking repayment of a shareholder loan.

The applicant sought to impose enterprise liability on related companies and personal liability on the estate of his former business partner.

The court found that the former partner had engaged in oppressive conduct by diverting corporate funds for personal benefit, defeating the applicant's reasonable expectations.

The court held the estate personally liable for the immediate repayment of $2,421,300 of the shareholder loan, but declined to impose enterprise liability on the related companies or personal liability on the estate trustee.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the amount owed to discharge a commercial mortgage.

The mortgage had a face value of $3 million, but the net amount advanced was approximately $2.6 million after deducting the lender's financing costs.

The applicant argued it was only required to repay the net amount advanced.

The court held that the express terms of the Mortgage Financing Agreement required the applicant to repay the full $3 million face value, displacing the general equitable rule that a mortgagee can only recover the amount actually advanced.

The purchaser sought partial summary judgment declaring an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property enforceable and claiming damages for breach when the vendors refused to close.

The vendors argued the agreement should be rectified to reflect that the sale was conditional on the simultaneous purchase of an adjacent property and further argued the purchaser failed to provide notice of waiver of conditions in accordance with the contract.

The court held that the vendors failed to meet the demanding test for rectification based on unilateral mistake because there was no convincing proof of a prior precise oral agreement and no conduct equivalent to fraud by the purchaser.

However, the purchaser’s waiver of conditions was ineffective because the agreement required personal service of notice and the contract’s entire‑agreement clause precluded waiver by conduct.

As a result, the agreement was never completed according to its terms and could not be enforced.

The court considered a motion by a court-appointed receiver seeking approval of professional fees incurred during a complex receivership investigation.

The receivership arose after the judgment debtor engaged in extensive efforts to conceal assets through individuals and corporate entities in order to avoid enforcement of a judgment owed to a former spouse.

The receiver, counsel, and forensic investigator undertook substantial asset tracing and recovery efforts that resulted in over $2 million being realized for the estate.

The court found the professional fees reasonable and necessary given the complexity of the concealment and the extensive investigative work required.

The motion to approve the professional fees was granted.

A court-appointed receiver brought a motion seeking approval of settlements reached in efforts to enforce a substantial family law judgment and recover assets allegedly concealed by the respondent.

The receiver also sought approval of significant professional fees incurred during forensic investigations and asset recovery.

The court approved certain settlements and ordered an immediate distribution to the judgment creditor but adjourned the determination of professional fees and related matters to future hearings.

The court emphasized concerns that professional fees could significantly reduce the creditor’s ultimate recovery and directed that no further fee payments be made pending further consideration.