Craig Colraine

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants sought a Funding Order to compel Securitization Parties and other secured lenders to fund a $40 million wind-down of the remaining entities.

The court dismissed the motion for the Funding Order, finding that section 11.01(b) of the CCAA expressly prohibits orders requiring the further advance of money or credit.

Consequently, the court also declined to approve a Key Employee Retention Plan, as it was dependent on the unavailable funding.

The court did, however, grant a temporary sealing order for the KERP details and extended the stay of proceedings to November 29, 2024.

In the context of ongoing CCAA proceedings, the applicants and various equipment financiers reached an impasse regarding the wind-down plan and a proposed going-concern sale of the logistics business.

The applicants sought a monetization order, an increase in the administration charge, and lien regularization, which were unopposed and granted by the court to maintain operations.

Due to significant disputes over the sale and liquidation of assets, the court adjourned the contested motions, including several lift-stay motions brought by creditors, and ordered the parties to attend mandatory mediation before a former Commercial List judge.

Following a successful application maintaining the forfeiture of a $100,000 deposit, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for $95,000 plus partial indemnity costs.

Because the applicant obtained a more favourable judgment, the court applied Rule 49.10(1) and awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $19,500 all-inclusive.

The applicants and respondent owned adjacent rowhouses.

The applicants' front veranda and a portion of their rear wall encroached onto the respondent's property.

The applicants sought a declaration of possessory title by adverse possession, relying on statutory declarations from the respondent's predecessor in title acknowledging the encroachments and her exclusion from the land between 1975 and 1990.

The court found that the physical layout and the predecessor's acquiescence satisfied the test for adverse possession before the land was converted to the Land Titles system.

The applicants' claim was granted and the respondent's cross-application for removal of the structures was dismissed.

The applicant vendor sought an order that the respondent purchaser forfeited her $100,000 deposit after failing to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser argued for relief from forfeiture, claiming the vendor would receive an unconscionable windfall because he resold the property for $115,000 more than the original purchase price.

The court applied the two-part test for relief from forfeiture and found that the 7% deposit was not disproportionate to the purchase price, nor was the forfeiture unconscionable.

The court ordered the deposit released to the vendor.

The appellant employee accepted an offer of employment that did not contain a termination provision.

Nine months later, he signed an employment agreement limiting his termination entitlements to the minimums under the Employment Standards Act.

After being terminated without cause seven years later, he sued for wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions.

The Court of Appeal held that the termination provision in the subsequent employment agreement was unenforceable for lack of fresh consideration, entitling the appellant to common law reasonable notice.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the appellant's claims for commissions on a major account finalized after his termination, finding no error in the interpretation of the commission plan or the rejection of his unjust enrichment claim.

The appellant factor appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of an 'Acceptance of Goods' document.

The appellant argued the document contained a promise by the respondent debtor to pay the amounts in the referenced invoices, characterizing it as an estoppel certificate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the document was merely an acknowledgement that the respondent would direct payments owed to its supplier to the appellant without set-off or deduction, but did not constitute a promise to pay the face amount of the invoices regardless of the actual amount owing.