Colby Stuart Linthwaite

The applicant, Guy Gissin, as Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc., sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of Israeli court judgments against the respondents for over 71 million NIS.

The respondents opposed, arguing recognition would be contrary to public policy and an abuse of process, including claims of double recovery and prior Canadian decisions on related facts.

The court found the Israeli judgments final, for a definite sum, and from a court of competent jurisdiction, and held that none of the narrow defences to enforcement (fraud, denial of natural justice, or public policy) applied.

The court rejected the double recovery argument, finding no evidence of over-recovery, and held that prior Canadian proceedings did not address or preclude the Israeli claims.

The application for recognition and enforcement was granted.

This decision is an appeal by Alan Saskin from the order of Associate Justice Ilchenko, sitting as Registrar in Bankruptcy, refusing an absolute discharge and imposing conditions under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court reviews the procedural history, the evidence, and the legal standards for discharge, including the meaning of "moral blameworthiness" under s. 173(1)(a) and the duties of a bankrupt under s. 173(1)(o).

The appeal is dismissed, with the court finding no error in the Registrar's factual or legal conclusions.

This decision concerns an appeal by Zeifman Partners Inc., as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Oragin Foods Inc., from the disallowance by KPMG Inc., as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Organic Garage (Canada) Ltd., of a proof of claim for $6,760,280.89.

The claim was based on alleged intercompany loans and a note payable.

The court allowed the appeal in part, admitting the "Current Liability Component" ($2,917,423.11) as a proven unsecured claim, but dismissed the appeal regarding the "Long Term Liability Component" and "Note Payable Component," finding insufficient evidence that these were debts rather than equity contributions.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the distinction between debt and equity in the context of related-party transactions in insolvency, and the applicable standards of review.

The court denied the respondents' motion for leave under Rule 39 to deliver an expert report on Israeli law in a recognition and enforcement application.

The decision reviews the procedural history, the applicable test for leave under Rule 39.02(2), and finds that the respondents failed to satisfy any of the criteria for leave.

The court held that the expert report was not relevant, did not respond to a matter raised on cross-examination, would cause non-compensable prejudice, and was not adequately explained as to its late delivery.

The application was adjourned to March 27, 2025, and directions were given for the delivery of amended factums.

The appellant, Gurdeep Nagra, appealed an order from a motion judge that had dismissed his appeal from a Registrar in Bankruptcy's decision.

The Registrar had reduced Nagra's claim in Verinder Malhotra's bankruptcy by expunging a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting the deference owed to the Registrar's ruling and that the appellant's arguments, which were not raised before the Registrar, were unsuccessful.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff, Theodore Jiujias, brought an urgent, ex parte motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property owned by defendants Michael Chun Ho Lau and Aaron Storr.

Jiujias, a creditor of Lau, alleged that Lau fraudulently conveyed his interest in the property to his spouse, Storr, and a company controlled by Storr (ASML Holdings Inc.), for nominal consideration, shortly after being served with a statement of claim in a prior mortgage action where Lau was in default of over $1.1 million.

The property was subsequently mortgaged for its market value and listed for sale.

The court applied the three-part Grefford test, finding a high probability of success in the underlying action, sufficient evidence of intent to defeat or delay creditors (noting numerous badges of fraud), and that the balance of convenience favored granting the CPL to prevent dissipation of equity.

The motion was granted.

The appellant creditor appealed an order from the Registrar in Bankruptcy that significantly reduced his proof of claim against the bankrupt.

The claim, initially for $5.99 million and accepted by the Trustee at $2.58 million, was reduced to $85,000 by the Registrar.

The core of the dispute was a $3.5 million promissory note, which the bankrupt argued was contingent on a surplus from hotel sales that never materialized, and was part of a "Governing Agreement" made to influence the creditor's criminal sentencing in the US.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Registrar's decision, finding that the Registrar properly considered extrinsic evidence (the factual matrix) in determining the note's contingency, and that the appellant's repeated attempts to re-introduce previously struck evidence constituted an abuse of process.

The Bankrupt sought to expunge or reduce a creditor's claim, and the motion was entirely successful.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that expungement motion.

The court found the creditor's conduct in opposing the motion to be reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous, having taken inconsistent legal and factual positions across various proceedings.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the bankrupt due to the creditor's conduct and the complexity and importance of the issues.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment motion concerning a repudiated agreement of purchase and sale for a cottage.

The appellants challenged the motion judge's findings on mitigation of damages and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that the appellants failed to meet their onus to prove the respondents did not take reasonable steps to mitigate their losses, and that the motion judge did not err in her assessment of the evidence.

The Court also granted leave to appeal the costs order but ultimately dismissed the costs appeal, upholding the motion judge's application of Rule 49.10 and the award of substantial indemnity costs to the respondents, finding that an informal settlement discussion did not revoke a prior formal offer to settle.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order setting aside the appellant's discharge from bankruptcy and vesting shares of a corporation (Bindaas Capital) in the trustee.

The motion judge found that the appellant, while an undischarged bankrupt, owned and operated Bindaas Capital, failed to disclose this asset, and fabricated documents to conceal his ownership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings and the discretionary decision to annul the discharge.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings or the exercise of discretion, and upheld the trustee's authority to pursue the after-acquired property.

The Appellants (Niagara Radio Group Inc., Northguard Capital Corp., and Andrew Ferri) brought a motion for an extension of time to perfect a consolidated appeal.

They initially sought to set aside or vary a previous order, but acknowledged that a single judge of the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to do so.

The delay in perfecting the appeal was attributed to difficulties in issuing and entering court orders.

The Respondents (Hydro One Networks Inc. and Scargall Owen-King LLP) did not oppose the motion.

The motion was granted, extending the deadline for perfecting the appeal.

The Trustee in bankruptcy sought court orders for access to the bankrupt's leased premises and an extension of the three-month period under s. 38(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act to elect to retain or assign the lease.

The Landlord opposed, arguing the Trustee had no right to access or assign the lease, and no legal basis existed to extend the period.

The court found that the Trustee, distinct from the Receiver, retained its rights under the CTA, including access for marketing the lease.

The court also held it had jurisdiction to extend the s. 38(2) period, not through inherent jurisdiction, but by applying s. 2 of Ontario Regulation 73/20 (the COVID-19 Suspension Order), which suspends periods for steps in proceedings.

The court granted a 90-day extension, subject to conditions regarding occupation rent, and ordered the parties to bear their own costs due to the mixed result.

The applicant, Zeifman Partners Inc., sought declarations that payments made by a now-bankrupt company (Discovery Electric Ontario Limited) to its principal's family and a related company (Tuscany Lighting and Furniture Ltd.) were transfers at undervalue, and payments to a third-party supplier (Boz Electric Supply Ltd.) were preferential.

The court found the payments to the Baldassare family members and Tuscany were void under s. 96(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), and the principal, Sam Baldassare, was held personally liable for these amounts.

The court dismissed the claim against Boz Electric Supply Ltd., finding those payments were made in the ordinary course of business, thereby rebutting the presumption of preference under s. 95(2) of the BIA.

A limitation period defence raised by all respondents was rejected, as the initiation of a Preference Motion was deemed the commencement of proceedings for the purposes of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff, Daland Developments Ltd., brought a motion to compel re-attendance and answer questions during cross-examination on affidavits filed by the defendants (2075568 Ontario Inc., Idacris Investments Inc., and 163157 Ontario Inc.) in support of their Rule 21 motion to strike the action.

The defendants' counsel refused questions on grounds of relevance, arguing they related to the merits or events preceding a prior Vesting Order.

The court found it inappropriate and unfair for a party to file affidavits and then assert that their sworn testimony is not open to challenge, especially when the circumstances surrounding a previous order might impact its reliability.

Citing established case law, the court ruled that cross-examination on an affidavit is not confined to its four corners but can cover any matters relevant to the issues for which the affidavit was filed, including the merits, pre-Order events, and the defendants' legal position.

The plaintiff's motion was granted, requiring the witnesses to re-attend and answer all relevant questions.

The debtor brought a motion seeking to prohibit the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) from cross-examining him on an affidavit filed in a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) motion.

The CPL motion was part of a civil action related to an alleged fraudulent conveyance, which also formed the basis of RBC's bankruptcy application against the debtor.

The court granted the debtor's motion, affirming the `Re Debtor` principle that a petitioning creditor cannot compel evidence from a debtor to prove a disputed bankruptcy application.

The court held that civil procedure rules allowing cross-examination cannot be used to indirectly circumvent substantive bankruptcy law, especially when the debtor disputes the debt and alleged acts of bankruptcy.

The appellants appealed a costs award of $60,583.05 made against them following the dismissal of their application to assess the accounts of their former lawyers (the respondents), who were self-represented on the application.

The appellants argued the award was excessive because it failed to account for the respondents' self-represented status and should have been nominal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in principle by treating the self-represented lawyers as if they were retained counsel and awarding costs on a partial indemnity basis without adjustment.

The court reduced the costs award to $20,000, all-inclusive, and awarded the appellants $10,000 for costs of the appeal.

The plaintiff estate sought leave to amend its statement of claim to add specific statutory particulars, including sections of the Statute of Frauds and other legislation, to support its claim for an interest in property.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments constituted new claims barred by a limitation period.

The court granted the motion, holding that the proposed amendments merely particularized existing factual allegations and did not introduce new causes of action, thus not being statute-barred.

The moving defendants sought an order for security for costs against the Estate of Gaetano Lo Faso under Rule 56.01(1)(d), arguing the Estate was a nominal plaintiff due to its status as a section 38 plaintiff under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and its lack of assets.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Estate, as the sole judgment creditor pursuing a claim assigned by the trustee, had a substantial interest in the litigation and was not a nominal plaintiff.

The court also considered access to justice, noting that denying the Estate the right to litigate due to lack of assets would be unjust.

A Teva employee fraudulently requisitioned and deposited 63 cheques into accounts under names matching or resembling real customers.

The majority held the collecting banks were liable in conversion because the payees were neither fictitious nor non-existing under s. 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act.

The Court restored the motions judge’s decision and rejected the banks’ false-payee defence.

This is a supplementary costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellants challenged the costs awarded by the application judge.

The Court of Appeal vacated the costs awarded by the application judge and left the determination of costs of the application to the trial judge.