Danielle Marks

The applicants, five community futures organizations, sought the appointment of MNP Ltd. as receiver over Future Health Technologies Inc. (FHT) under section 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

FHT provides technology and technical support for the Community Paramedicine Remote Patient Monitoring Program (CPRPM), which delivers free tele-home monitoring services to approximately 1,500 chronically ill patients in rural Ontario.

The respondent, 2804476 Ontario Inc., opposed the application, arguing the receivership was a scheme to seize control of disputed intellectual property.

The court found that FHT was insolvent, that the appointment of a receiver was necessary to preserve critical healthcare services, and that the applicants held valid secured debt.

The court appointed the receiver and granted a stay of proceedings in related litigation, while confirming that the receiver would not take possession of disputed intellectual property without further court order.

The applicant tenant sought an order confirming the renewal of their commercial lease and the appointment of an arbitrator to determine renewal terms.

The respondents landlords brought a counter-application seeking a declaration that the lease was terminated and a writ of possession.

The court found that the tenant had validly exercised their option to renew the lease, having met all conditions, and was not in material default of the lease terms.

The landlords' alleged breaches were not substantiated or were deemed unreasonable.

The court granted the tenant's application for lease renewal and arbitration of terms, and dismissed the landlords' counter-application for termination and possession.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following an appeal.

The court ordered the respondents, Walter Campbell and Olakemi Sobomehin, to pay costs in the amount of $23,856.81 to the appellant, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2600.

The respondents had acted in person.

This appeal addressed the interpretation of "fraud" in sections 46(1)9 and 47(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, specifically whether it includes "constructive fraud." The application judge had set aside an arbitral award, finding constructive fraud by the Condominium Corporation for expanding the scope of arbitration beyond costs.

The Court of Appeal reversed this, holding that "fraud" in the Act refers only to actual fraud, requiring dishonesty or moral turpitude, not the broader equitable concept of constructive fraud.

The court emphasized the Act's objectives of efficiency and finality in arbitration, and the narrow grounds for judicial intervention.

The condominium corporation sought full or substantial indemnity costs after a mixed result in an application against unit owners for unauthorized modifications.

The court found the condominium's offer to settle was as favourable or more favourable than the ruling, entitling them to costs under Rule 49.10.

However, due to the applicant raising an alternate remedy late in the process, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.10 and Rule 57.01, awarding a reduced amount of $5,000 in costs to the condominium, significantly less than the $37,000-$46,000 sought.

The applicant condominium corporation sought orders against unit owners for unauthorized modifications, specifically an added bathroom, which breached the Condominium Declaration and Section 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998, by posing a risk to property and occupants due to Building Code non-compliance.

The court found jurisdiction for the Section 117 breach but dismissed the Declaration breach claim due to a failure to arbitrate.

The court ordered the respondents to bring the added bathroom into Building Code compliance or remove it, with the condominium authorized to perform the work at the owners' expense if they failed to comply.

The applicant purchased a condominium unit after relying on a status certificate that stated the corporation had no knowledge of circumstances that might result in an increase in common expenses.

However, the corporation had known for years about a major water main project and was actively tendering it when the certificate was issued.

The applicant sought declarations under the Condominium Act.

The court found the disclosure inadequate and declared the applicant's unit exempt from the special assessment for as long as he owns it.

The court also found the corporation's conduct oppressive but declined to award legal fee damages.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against two unit owners for compliance orders under the Condominium Act.

The corporation alleged the respondents engaged in aggressive, intimidating, and harassing behaviour toward the board, staff, and other owners, including physical altercations, posting inappropriate notices, and installing an unauthorized wildlife camera.

The court found the respondents breached their obligations under sections 117 and 119 of the Act and granted the requested compliance orders, prohibiting them from harassing others or disturbing the quiet enjoyment of the property.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal by an insurer, Co-operators General Insurance Company, finding it had no duty to defend its insureds, Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (FCS) and Laridae Communications Inc., against a class action and a third-party claim.

The claims arose from a data breach where a confidential report was hacked from FCS's website and posted online.

The court held that the data exclusion clauses in both the Commercial General Liability (CGL) and Professional Liability policies were unambiguous and clearly excluded coverage for claims arising from the electronic distribution or display of data.

The court rejected arguments that the exclusion clauses nullified the policies or that there were non-electronic claims, emphasizing that the substance of the claims solely related to online data dissemination.

The Moving Defendants brought a motion to compel a non-party insurer, Co-Operators General Insurance Company, to produce the complete insurance policy and investigative materials related to a bankrupt co-defendant, Dino & Chris Electric LTD (DCE).

The court dismissed the motion for the insurance policy, finding it not relevant to the material issues in the main action and that fairness considerations favored the non-party.

However, the court granted the motion for investigative materials, ordering Co-Operators to produce a list of documents and copies for judicial inspection to determine their relevance and fairness for disclosure to the Moving Defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of its Notice of Action and Statement of Claim nunc pro tunc to February 14, 2017, following a two-month delay.

The defendant insurer opposed, arguing prejudice due to the expiry of the policy's one-year limitation period and an inadequate explanation for the delay.

The court found the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation (inadvertence and desire not to disrupt settlement negotiations) and successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice, noting the insurer had early notice and access to information.

The court clarified that issuing a Notice of Action within the limitation period stops the limitation clock, mitigating prejudice from subsequent late service of the Statement of Claim.

The motion was granted, validating service and ordering the defendant to file a Statement of Defence.