Christine Jonathan

The Debtor (2184698 Ontario Inc.) brought a motion seeking to stop the court-appointed Receiver's sale process of a mortgaged property and for a declaration that the Receiver breached its duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Debtor alleged deficiencies in the listing price and asymmetrical information sharing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no breach of the Receiver's duty to act in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner.

The court held that the Receiver's actions, including the listing price based on appraisals and consultation with the Lender, were appropriate and in the best interests of all stakeholders.

The motion was deemed premature, and a previously granted interlocutory injunction was vacated, allowing the sale process to proceed.

Costs were awarded against the Debtor.

The plaintiff, Clifton Blake Capital Corp., brought a motion for summary judgment to recover a $164,000 commitment fee from 10972827 Canada Inc. (109 Canada) following the non-completion of an $8.2 million loan transaction.

The plaintiff argued that 109 Canada unilaterally terminated the agreement, while the defendants claimed anticipatory breach by the plaintiff.

The court found that 109 Canada terminated the transaction and that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to close.

Judgment was granted against 109 Canada for the commitment fee, adjusted for deposits.

The action against the personal and corporate guarantors was dismissed, as their guarantee was found to be conditional on the loan being advanced, which did not occur.

The defendants' counterclaim for damages related to obtaining new financing was also dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved for an order refusing confirmation of an Associate Justice's report concerning a fixed-price construction contract dispute.

The plaintiffs challenged findings related to extra costs, admissions in a Scott Schedule, and deficiencies/uncompleted work.

The court largely upheld the Associate Justice's findings, affirming the fixed-price nature of the contract and the requirement for written authorization for extras.

However, the court found that the Associate Justice overlooked a $4,500 concession by the defendants in the Scott Schedule regarding drywall charges, granting the plaintiffs this additional credit.

The court also upheld the original costs award from the Associate Justice's report and awarded the defendants $4,000 in costs for the current motion, reflecting their overall success.

The plaintiffs, a builder and his wife, claimed a construction lien and damages for breach of contract and delay against the defendant homeowners, who counterclaimed for deficiencies and uncompleted work.

The court found the construction contract was a fixed-price agreement, not cost-plus, and that the plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement to extras due to lack of written authorization as required by the contract.

The court allowed some of the defendants' back-charges for deficiencies and uncompleted work against a holdback.

It also found both parties equally responsible for project delays, awarding the plaintiffs a portion of their claimed delay damages.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs were awarded a net amount significantly less than their initial claim.