Danny Nunes

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a municipal by-law authorizing the sale of a surplus strip of land to an adjacent property owner, and moved to review a single judge's decision denying leave to obtain a certificate of pending litigation.

The Divisional Court declined to consider the merits of the judicial review application, finding the sale was a private transaction of limited public character, the applicants had delayed in pursuing their interest, and the transaction had already closed with a bona fide purchaser for value.

The court also dismissed the motion for a certificate of pending litigation, as the applicants could not establish a triable interest in the land.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to obtain a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a strip of municipal land that the respondent City declared surplus and sold to the respondent purchaser.

The applicants had commenced an application for judicial review to quash the by-law authorizing the sale.

The applicants conceded they had no claim to an interest in the land but argued equity demanded the status quo be maintained.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under s. 103 of the Courts of Justice Act, a reasonable claim to an interest in land is an indispensable threshold requirement for a CPL, and the court cannot expand the legislative intention to grant a CPL where no interest in land is claimed.

The Applicants sought an order extending the Stay Period under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, approving the Sixty-first Report of the Monitor, and approving the fees and disbursements of the Monitor, Monitor’s counsel, and Applicant’s counsel.

The court found the Applicants acted in good faith and with due diligence, that the extension was reasonable, and that the requested approvals were appropriate.

The motion was granted.

The parties attended a case conference to settle the form of an order arising from a previous decision by a retired judge.

The respondents sought to include language requiring the return of shares, which the applicant opposed.

The court found that the previous judge made no determination regarding the return of shares, as the issue was not before the court during the prior hearing.

The court declined to include the respondents' proposed language and settled the order in the form submitted by the applicant.

This case conference addressed a dispute over the final form of an order previously issued by a retired judge.

The respondents sought to include language regarding the return of shares, which the applicant contended was never an issue before the court.

The court, interpreting the original order and the scope of the prior hearing, determined that the retired judge had made no finding or determination on the return of shares.

Consequently, the court declined to include the proposed language, settling the order in the form submitted by the applicant.

This endorsement addresses an unopposed motion brought by the Applicants in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The Applicants sought an order extending the stay period until January 31, 2024, approving the Monitor’s 58th Report and its activities, and approving the fees and disbursements of the Monitor, Monitor’s counsel, and Applicants’ counsel.

The court found that the Applicants continued to work in good faith and with due diligence, had sufficient resources for the extension period, and that the requested extension and fee approvals were reasonable.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The Applicants brought an unopposed motion in CCAA proceedings for an order extending the Stay Period, approving the Fifty-Fifth Report of the Monitor, and approving the fees and disbursements of the Monitor and counsel.

The court found the Applicants were acting in good faith and with due diligence.

The court granted the motion, extending the Stay Period to March 31, 2023, to encourage expedited resolution, and approved the Monitor's report and the requested fees.

The plaintiffs brought two motions in a shareholder dispute.

The first motion sought to dismiss the action against certain bankrupt corporate defendants and their counterclaim, which was granted on consent with prejudice and without costs.

The second motion sought leave to amend the statement of claim against the remaining defendants to add an oppression remedy claim and further particulars.

The remaining defendants opposed the amendments, arguing the oppression claim was untenable and that some claims were derivative in nature.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were not doomed to fail and that an oppression claim could co-exist with breach of contract and derivative claims.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The Applicants brought an unopposed motion in their CCAA proceedings seeking an extension of the Stay Period to August 31, 2021, and authorization for the Monitor to effect the return of trust property to Lien Claimants and Trust Claimants.

The court found the Applicants were acting in good faith and with due diligence, and that the return of trust property did not constitute a distribution or dividend under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court granted the stay extension, authorized the distributions, and approved the Monitor's activities and fees.

The Applicants brought an unopposed motion in their CCAA proceedings to extend the Stay Period to August 31, 2021, assign certain letters of credit to the Israeli Functionary, and approve the Monitor's Forty-Sixth Report along with professional fees.

The court found the Applicants were acting in good faith and with due diligence, and that they had sufficient resources to continue functioning during the proposed stay period.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The appellant appealed an order requiring it to reimburse the respondents for legal fees incurred in collecting on promissory notes.

The appellant argued that the fees were related to a global settlement of disputes rather than collection, and that the application judge erred in awarding full indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the enforcement efforts were inextricably linked to the settlement discussions, and that the application judge properly reduced the claimed fees by a third to arrive at a reasonable amount as required by the general security agreement.

The Monitor and Receiver in the CCAA proceedings of Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. and affiliated entities brought three unopposed motions.

The court granted an extension of the stay period, finding the parties were working in good faith and had sufficient cash flow.

The court also granted a vesting order resolving a dispute over Fuzion Geothermal Room Units and approved a settlement between the Receiver and TS Sports Consulting Inc. regarding advisory fees, finding the settlement fair and commercially reasonable.

The applicants, comprising iMarketing Solutions Group Inc. and its subsidiaries, applied for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to severe liquidity challenges.

The court granted an Initial Order, including a stay of proceedings, finding that the applicants' businesses could not survive without immediate protection.

The court also approved debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing of $1.0 million, an Administration Charge of $300,000, a Directors' Charge of $1.3 million, the appointment of a Chief Restructuring Officer, and authorization to pay critical suppliers to ensure the continuation of operations during the restructuring process.