Peter Allan Cumming

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover amounts owing under a loan agreement.

The defendant admitted the loan in his statement of defence but alleged he signed the agreement under duress and without understanding its legal ramifications.

The defendant did not appear on the motion despite service by mail and email, which the court validated under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the evidentiary record established the debt.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding loan amount with contractual interest and substantial-indemnity costs.

Costs were determined following the plaintiff’s unsuccessful motion for partial summary judgment in an insurance dispute.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the moving party acted unreasonably in bringing the motion under Rule 20.06(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court rejected that argument, finding the motion was brought reasonably given the complexity and uniqueness of the issues.

Applying the ordinary rule that costs follow the event on a partial indemnity basis, the court awarded costs to the responding party while directing expert fees to follow the cause at trial.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking injunctive relief and an Anton Piller order against former employees and a competing corporation.

Evidence indicated that one former employee downloaded thousands of confidential corporate files prior to leaving employment and that the defendants were using the information to compete for the plaintiff’s principal customer.

Applying the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure as articulated in RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s business, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The court held that the defendants’ conduct arguably breached contractual confidentiality obligations, restrictive covenants, and duties of confidence.

Injunctive relief restraining the defendants’ conduct was granted.

The moving creditors in a bankruptcy sought leave under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to commence an action relating to the administration of the bankrupt estate, and also sought leave under s. 215 of the Act to include the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and two of its employees as defendants.

The proposed claim against the regulatory authority and its employees alleged negligence in the investigation and handling of complaints about the trustee’s conduct.

The court held that all material facts supporting the negligence claim were known by June 23, 2008, when a registrar issued a decision finding misconduct by the trustee.

Accordingly, any claim against the regulatory authority defendants was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Leave to include those defendants was refused, but authorization under s. 38 to pursue claims against other defendants was granted.

At a Commercial List case conference in a civil action involving debt obligations and guarantees, the court addressed procedural scheduling and evidentiary issues relating to an upcoming summary judgment motion.

The principal issue on the anticipated motion was whether the plaintiff’s claims were statute‑barred under applicable limitation laws, potentially governed by German law.

The court directed the parties to produce supplementary expert reports addressing the applicable foreign law and its limitation periods, particularly in light of allegations of fraudulent concealment that might affect discoverability.

The court also addressed potential hearsay objections to affidavit evidence and ordered preservation and production of relevant documents for the period 1996–2004.

A bankrupt sought a discharge under s. 169 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Two creditors opposed the discharge and requested authorization under s. 38 of the Act to pursue recovery proceedings in the trustee’s name where the trustee declined due to lack of funds.

The court reviewed the complex financial history of the bankrupt, including transfers of real property, potential settlements within five years of bankruptcy, and substantial payments relating to the bankrupt’s spouse’s medical care.

The court concluded that a creditor‑initiated s. 38 proceeding could provide the only realistic opportunity for recovery for the estate and imposed conditions for creditor notice, participation, and court approval of any settlement.

The discharge hearing was adjourned pending further developments.

A secured creditor brought an application under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking the appointment of an interim receiver over the assets of a debtor corporation.

The debtor opposed the application and brought a motion to stay the receivership proceeding or alternatively to consolidate it with a separate action challenging the validity of a general security agreement and alleging contractual breaches.

The court found on the evidence that the debtor was insolvent, unable to meet obligations as they became due, and operating at a deficit.

As the debtor had granted security that became enforceable upon insolvency, the secured creditor’s interest required protection through court supervision.

An interim receiver with limited powers was appointed and the debtor’s motion for a stay or consolidation was dismissed.