Daphne Chu

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment after the defendants were noted in default in an action alleging fraudulent inducement to invest in purported real estate development projects.

The court reviewed the deemed admissions under Rule 19.02 and the evidentiary record to determine whether the facts established liability for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Default judgment was granted against one individual defendant and related corporate entities for specific investments where the plaintiffs proved reliance on knowingly false representations in promotional materials.

Claims relating to other investments and claims against another individual defendant were directed to proceed to an undefended trial due to insufficient pleaded or evidentiary support.

The court also awarded punitive damages against the primary individual defendant and directed further submissions on costs.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike the Defendants' Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for non-compliance with a prior contempt order, which required payment of a fine and costs.

The court found the Defendants' failure to comply was deliberate and their explanations for non-payment were not credible.

Applying the factors from *Falcon Lumber* and principles from *Rana v. Unifund Assurance Company*, the court determined that striking the pleadings was necessary to uphold court orders and ensure the fair administration of justice, given the Defendants' pattern of non-compliance and attempts to renegotiate orders.

This endorsement addresses motions related to a proposed recapitalization transaction of Xplore Inc. and 16029167 Canada Inc. via a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA).

The applicants sought an Interim Order to facilitate a vote on the arrangement, while certain satellite providers (unsecured creditors) brought 'comeback motions' objecting to the preliminary interim order's stay of remedies and the proposed treatment of their contracts, including non-payment of full contractual rates and the use of a reverse vesting order.

The court granted the Interim Order, finding that the applicants met the statutory requirements and acted in good faith, and that the fairness of the arrangement, including the novel reverse vesting order, warranted a full fairness hearing.

The court upheld the stay, finding the non-disclosure by applicants not material and that the court has broad discretion to impose terms on critical suppliers, drawing analogies to CCAA provisions.

The satellite providers' requests for full contractual payments and security were denied, and their motion to lift the stay for a bankruptcy application was adjourned.

The appellants appealed the sanction imposed by a motion judge for the respondents' civil contempt of a Mareva injunction.

The respondents had violated the injunction by encumbering a property and failing to place rental income in trust.

The motion judge imposed a fine and costs, with a conditional order to strike pleadings if not paid.

The appellants sought imprisonment and immediate striking of pleadings, arguing the sanction was inadequate and the costs award was too low.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's sanction proportionate and his discretion on costs appropriate, emphasizing that incarceration for civil contempt is rare and the contempt in this case was modest.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a "life of mine" supply contract for sodium cyanide used in gold mining.

The appellants, Kinross Gold Corporation and its subsidiaries, sought a declaration that their contract with the respondent, Cyanco Company, LLC, for liquid sodium cyanide did not prevent them from sourcing solid sodium cyanide elsewhere.

The trial judge dismissed Kinross's action, concluding that the contract obligated Kinross to purchase sodium cyanide exclusively from Cyanco if the mines were operating and required liquid sodium cyanide.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the interpretation of the contract, the consideration of surrounding circumstances, the application of related contracts principles, or the assessment of commercial reasonableness.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.