Darren Marr

The court voided six promissory notes and struck out related mortgages registered by the plaintiffs against the defendants' properties, finding that the notes were materially altered without consent, contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act.

The court also declined to grant equitable mortgages or certificates of pending litigation, citing the plaintiffs' inequitable conduct and failure to meet statutory tests.

The decision addresses issues of forged notes, after-acquired property, corporate personality, and the application of the Family Law Act to matrimonial homes.

This decision concerns a motion by Jaspreet Kaur for security for costs against Ronald Dawson in a dispute over the beneficial ownership of real property.

The court finds that Dawson failed to pay prior costs orders, appears to be a nominal applicant, and that the application is arguably frivolous and vexatious.

The court orders Dawson to post security for costs, with leave for Kaur to seek further security as the litigation progresses.

The applicant, Roger Vanden Berghe NV (RVB), sought to enforce a final judgment issued by a Belgian court against the respondent, Korhani of Canada Inc. RVB's evidence, largely uncontested, established that Korhani owed RVB for unpaid invoices, and the Belgian court had granted a default judgment after proper service.

Korhani disputed the amounts owing and argued lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice, but provided no evidence to support these claims.

The court applied a generous and liberal approach to recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, finding that the Belgian court had competent jurisdiction due to a real and substantial connection (contractual jurisdiction clause, place of business, and order processing).

The court dismissed Korhani's defences of fraud and lack of natural justice, as they related to the merits of the original dispute rather than procedural fairness, and no evidence was presented to support them.

The Belgian judgment was recognized and enforced, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The case involved three interrelated motions within the receivership of ProjectCo, the entity responsible for the St. Michael’s Hospital redevelopment.

Unity Health Toronto sought to lift a stay of proceedings to terminate the Project Agreement due to ProjectCo's defaults.

The Bank of Montreal, as Administrative Agent for the Lenders, sought an order to assign ProjectCo's rights to enforce a Tower Interim Completion (TIC) payment and to dismiss Unity's motion.

Unity also sought to dismiss the Lenders' TIC application for lack of standing.

The court granted Unity's motion to lift the stay and to dismiss the Lenders' TIC application, and dismissed the Lenders' assignment motion.

The court found Unity would be materially prejudiced by the stay's continuation, while the Lenders' prejudice was contractually prescribed.

The Lenders lacked standing for the TIC application, and no legal or equitable assignment of ProjectCo's rights to enforce the TIC payment existed.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a second oppression remedy application and a cross-motion.

The applicant, Michelle Gojkovich, was largely successful in her motion, which sought the appointment of a monitor and other relief, while the respondents' cross-motion to disqualify the applicant's counsel was dismissed.

The court awarded the applicant $60,000 in partial indemnity costs, payable jointly and severally by John Rody and Organic Products Consulting Inc., explicitly exempting Buhbli Organics Inc. from liability.

The court also reiterated an earlier order for John Rody to reimburse Buhbli Organics Inc. for legal fees paid on his behalf.

The applicant brought a motion within an ongoing oppression remedy application to join a related corporation, Buhbli Brands Inc., as a respondent and to appoint a monitor over the respondents' businesses.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to dismiss the applicant's motion and disqualify her counsel, alleging the applicant unlawfully accessed the individual respondent's email accounts and obtained privileged communications.

The court found that the applicant's counsel acted appropriately by segregating unread privileged documents and notifying opposing counsel.

Finding no prejudice to the respondents, the court dismissed the cross-motion, joined the related corporation on a go-forward basis, and appointed a monitor to oversee the businesses.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a default judgment granted by a Belgian court against the respondent for unpaid invoices.

The court found that the Belgian judgment met the criteria for recognition (competent jurisdiction, final, definite sum).

The respondent attempted to raise defenses of lack of natural justice (improper service, no opportunity to defend due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and lack of notice of rescheduled hearing), fraud, and public policy.

The court dismissed these defenses, finding that adequate notice was given and that the respondent failed to prove fraud or that the Belgian law was contrary to Canadian public policy.

The application for recognition and enforcement was granted.

The plaintiff, 1000249084 Ontario Inc., sought summary judgment for a mortgage debt and sale of a property.

The defendant, Payam Andazesgishahr, argued collusion between the plaintiff (owned by the son of his former business partner) and his former partner, and that the plaintiff acted in bad faith.

The defendant also argued the proceeding was deficient because his wife, Ima Tavakkoli, a co-resident in the matrimonial home, was not served.

The court found no genuine issue of collusion or bad faith, noting the plaintiff's actions were reasonable business decisions.

The court also dismissed the argument regarding the wife's non-service, finding she had actual knowledge of the proceedings and that the argument was a delay tactic.

The court granted judgment to the plaintiff for the mortgage amount and an order for possession, directing the title of the proceeding to be amended to add the wife as a defendant and staying the judgment for 30 days to allow her to seek relief.

The appellants appealed an order directing funds paid into court to be released to the respondent, which were secured by a mortgage.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the order to be interlocutory rather than final.

The court reasoned that the order did not finally determine the substantive issues between the parties, such as claims of improvident realization or breach of duty, which remained subject to a separate, unscheduled application.

This decision concerns an oppression remedy application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Following a prior ruling that declared oppressive conduct and ordered the winding up of Buhbli Organics Inc., the court addresses the appointment of a liquidator.

The respondents opposed the appointment and sought a stay pending appeal, arguing the hearing should be deferred.

The court dismissed the respondents' arguments, finding the liquidator's appointment integral to the previous order, and proceeded to appoint MNP Ltd. as liquidator, rejecting the respondents' cost concerns as the rates were market-based.

The court also issued an order with specific powers for the liquidator, clarifying its role and limitations, and ordered a judgment for $170,000 against the respondents for non-compliance with a previous order.

Following a successful oppression remedy application where the court ordered the winding up of the corporation, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court agreed with the applicant's unopposed costs submissions and awarded costs of $158,297.43, payable by the individual respondent rather than the corporation.

The payment of the disbursement for an appraisal report was made conditional upon the applicant providing proof of personal payment.

The court-appointed Receiver brought multiple motions seeking various forms of relief, including a declaration of vacant possession and writ of possession for a condominium unit (PH 07), approval and vesting orders (AVOs) for the sale of two specific condominium units (PH 02 and PH 03), prospective AVOs for five remaining units subject to sale conditions, approval of certain distributions from sale proceeds, approval of the Receiver's activities, and a sealing order for confidential appendices.

The applicant, KingSett Mortgage Corporation, and CIBC supported the relief.

The respondent, 30 Roe Investments Corp., represented by its president and personal guarantor, Raymond Zar, opposed some aspects, particularly the pre-approval of sales for remaining units without the debtor's consent and the immediate payment of HST.

The court granted most of the Receiver's requests, finding no lawful right for the occupant of PH 07, approving the sales under specific conditions, and approving distributions, with a temporary deferral on the HST payment issue to allow the respondent to provide supporting documentation.

The applicant and respondent were former romantic and business partners who co-owned a corporation.

Following the breakdown of their personal relationship, the respondent excluded the applicant from the business, denied her remuneration, and diverted corporate assets to his own consulting company.

The applicant sought an oppression remedy, requesting that the respondent be ordered to purchase her shares.

The court found that the respondent's conduct was oppressive and violated the applicant's reasonable expectations.

However, because the respondent could not afford to buy the shares and the business was entirely dependent on him, the court ordered the respondent to pay $170,000 in damages for the diverted remuneration and ordered the corporation to be wound up.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's proceeding for an oppression remedy and fraudulent conveyance, the respondents sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and unproven allegations of fraud.

The court found that Rule 49.10 did not entitle the respondents to substantial indemnity costs and that the allegations of fraudulent conveyance did not carry the moral opprobrium required for an elevated costs award.

The court also rejected the applicant's request for equitable set-off.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $18,550.

The applicant, the largest creditor of a bankrupt sports medicine clinic, brought an application under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The applicant alleged that the individual respondents flipped the bankrupt's assets and goodwill to a new corporation without paying fair market value, constituting a fraudulent conveyance or transfer at undervalue.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that any assets with realizable value were conveyed to the new corporation prior to bankruptcy, nor any evidence of the business's going concern value.

The appellants, a group of subcontractors and a bank, appealed an application judge's decision that rescission of surety bonds might be possible even if it affects innocent third parties.

The bonds were issued by Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. for a large construction project, but Zurich later discovered alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and collusion that induced it to issue the bonds.

The appellants sought a declaration that rescission was unavailable as a matter of law due to the involvement of innocent third parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that prejudice to third parties is not an absolute bar to rescission, especially in cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, and that such a determination requires a full factual record at trial.

This appeal concerned the validity of an email notice of waiver of a development condition in an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellants argued that the notice had to be hand-delivered, while the respondent contended that email delivery was sufficient given the contract's terms and the parties' communication practices.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the email notice was valid.

The court emphasized a holistic interpretation of the agreement, giving precedence to negotiated terms in Schedule A over standard form provisions, and considering the parties' established practice of email communication.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Capstack Advisory Services Inc., claimed payment of fees for debt financing services provided to the defendants for a condominium development project.

The defendants disputed the contractual terms, alleged negligence, and contested the amount claimed.

The court, in a hybrid summary trial, found that the Mandate Letter constituted the agreement, and the defendants were bound by their conduct despite the absence of a fully executed copy.

The court determined that Capstack had performed its obligations appropriately and was entitled to its fees, with a minor adjustment regarding the due diligence fee being included in the overall 1% fee.

All corporate defendants were found liable, while Tyler Ross was not personally liable.

The applicant sought a declaration that a $2 million mortgage registered by the respondent in favour of a related company was void.

The mortgage was registered on the same day a certificate of pending litigation was lifted, while a trial decision regarding a breach of contract claim by the applicant against the respondent was under reserve.

The court found that the mortgage was registered with the intent to defeat or hinder the applicant's ability to collect on a potential judgment, and that the respondent was on the eve of insolvency at the time.

The application was granted and the mortgage was declared void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act.