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.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application seeking a declaration that he was a director of a not-for-profit corporation and that a respondent director was in a conflict of interest for purchasing adjacent property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was not a director under the Letters Patent and lacked standing to bring a derivative action without leave.

The court also upheld the finding that the respondent director was not in a conflict of interest, as the purchase was transparent and approved by the corporation.

The appellant appealed an order of a Superior Court judge resolving a priority issue between two mortgages registered under the Land Titles Act.

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals, as section 27 of the Land Titles Act provides that appeals from orders made under the Act lie to the Divisional Court.

The appeals were transferred to the Divisional Court pursuant to section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Three secured lenders brought competing applications to determine mortgage priorities after a first mortgage was fraudulently discharged from title and later mortgages were advanced in reliance on the register.

The court found the homeowners were responsible for the fraudulent discharge and concealed the prior debt while continuing payments to the original lender to avoid detection.

Applying the deferred indefeasibility framework under the Land Titles Act and the Court of Appeal's decision in Lawrence, the court held the later mortgagees took from fraudsters and were intermediate encumbrancers.

The original mortgage retained first priority, the later bank mortgage ranked second, and the subsequent private mortgage ranked third.

The register was ordered rectified and no costs were awarded.