Demetrios Yiokaris

The Registrar proposed to refuse to renew the appellant's licence as a vendor and builder under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017, citing the sole director's past criminal convictions.

The Tribunal found that the director's criminal conduct occurred 15 years ago, he had since been rehabilitated, maintained good credit, and was forthright about his history.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant could be expected to be financially responsible, carry on business with honesty and integrity, and that renewal was not contrary to the public interest.

The Registrar was directed to renew the licence without conditions.

The Receiver brought a motion for court approval of multiple settlement agreements resolving litigation arising from the receivership of Distinct Infrastructure Group Inc., and for a sealing order over the confidential settlement terms.

The court approved the settlements, finding them to be a fair and reasonable commercial resolution.

The court also granted the sealing order, applying the Sherman Estate test and finding that the public interest in promoting settlements and preserving commercially sensitive information outweighed the negative effects on the open court principle.

Maria Amorim appealed a judgment that declared her ineligible for survivor pension benefits under the Pension Benefits Act, based on a finding that she and Daniel Carvalho were living "separate and apart" when he began receiving disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's factual finding that the parties were living separate and apart, which was entitled to deference.

The court found no reviewable error in the application judge's holistic consideration of the indicia for "separate and apart" status.

The appellant sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her appeal for delay and to extend time to perfect the appeal.

The underlying appeal concerned a motion judge's decision to dismiss the appellant's action via reverse summary judgment, which sought to set aside a property transfer under power of sale due to alleged fraud and conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal granted the appellant's request, finding that despite some delay, she maintained an intention to appeal and had arguable grounds, particularly regarding the motion judge's assessment of "badges of fraud" in the context of a power of sale and the chargee's duties.

The court also clarified that a writ of possession requires a pre-existing order for possession, which the purchaser lacked.

In the CCAA proceedings of Laurentian University, the applicant sought an order regarding a Compensation Claims Process.

On consent, the court deferred relief related to Third Party RHBP Claims to a subsequent hearing, ordering that the deadlines and procedures in the Compensation Claims Process Order would not apply to those claims at this time.

The remaining unopposed relief was granted.

Thorneloe University sought leave to appeal a CCAA judge's decision that allowed Laurentian University to disclaim federation agreements and approved a debtor-in-possession (DIP) loan amendment.

Thorneloe argued the disclaimer would cause its insolvency, provided minimal financial benefit to Laurentian, and was motivated by anti-competition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the leave motion, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious, not of significance to the practice, and would unduly hinder the progress of the CCAA restructuring.

The court upheld the CCAA judge's balancing of interests under s. 32(4) of the CCAA, emphasizing the high deference owed to supervising judges in CCAA proceedings.

Laurentian University brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings seeking the appointment of a Chief Redevelopment Officer, an increase in the fee cap for the Board of Governors' independent counsel, and approval of a claims process.

The court approved the appointment of the CRO and the fee increase.

Regarding the claims process, TD Bank proposed amendments to require consultation on claims over $5 million.

Balancing the need for efficiency with creditor involvement, the court modified the claims process to establish an 'Inspector Group' to authorize the compromise of material claims, drawing on principles from the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant, Laurentian University, brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings to extend the stay of proceedings, approve an amendment to its DIP facility increasing the available funds by $10 million, and approve settlement agreements with its faculty association, staff union, and Huntington University.

The court found that the applicant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, making significant progress in its restructuring.

Despite opposition from Thorneloe University and the University of Sudbury regarding the DIP amendment, the court approved the requested relief, finding the DIP conditions reasonable and the extension necessary for the applicant's continued operations and restructuring efforts.

Thorneloe University brought a motion under section 32(2) of the CCAA to prohibit Laurentian University from disclaiming their Federation Agreement and Financial Distribution Notice.

Laurentian argued the disclaimer was necessary to achieve financial sustainability and present a viable restructuring plan, saving approximately $7.7 million annually.

Thorneloe argued the disclaimer would cause it significant financial hardship and force it into insolvency.

The court balanced the competing interests, giving significant weight to the Monitor's recommendation, and concluded that upholding the disclaimer was the least undesirable choice to prevent the potential collapse of Laurentian University.

The motion was dismissed.

Thorneloe University brought a motion under section 32(2) of the CCAA seeking an order that its Federation Agreement and Financial Distribution Notice with Laurentian University not be disclaimed or resiliated, and to amend the DIP Amendment Agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.

The court issued a corrigendum to correct an error in an endorsement dated April 16, 2021.

The correction clarified that the applicant's pension benefits were reduced to the joint and survivor benefit level commencing May 1, 2010, and that the clawback of overpayments commenced February 1, 2011.

The court also amended the endorsement to direct that payments to the applicant on a life-only basis be made retroactive to May 1, 2002, with pre-judgment interest.

The applicant sought a declaration that his former spouse did not meet the eligibility requirements for a joint and survivor pension under the Pension Benefits Act.

The applicant argued they were living separate and apart when his disability pension commenced, or alternatively, that she had signed a spousal waiver.

The court found that the parties were living separate and apart at the relevant time, as they lived in different countries with no significant interaction.

Although the court found the applicant had forged the respondent's signature on the spousal waiver, he was still entitled to a life-only pension based on the separation.

Costs were denied to the successful applicant due to his deceptive conduct regarding the waiver.

The appellant, a homeowner, sought indemnification under her property insurance policy for damage to her log house caused by a contractor's restoration work.

The trial judge found coverage existed but dismissed her claim due to late notice of the loss, denying relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal but varied the costs awards, finding the trial judge had expanded the scope of issues beyond those directed by the appellate court in its prior decision, thereby increasing the appellant's reasonable cost expectations.

The Bondfield Group, a major construction company, sought CCAA protection due to insolvency, over $1 billion in active contracts, and over 200 lawsuits.

The application was unopposed and resulted from extensive stakeholder negotiations.

The court granted an initial order for CCAA protection, including a stay of proceedings, approval of a tailored $8 million Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) facility funded by Zurich Insurance, an Administration Charge for professional fees, and a Directors' Charge for $3 million (excluding John Aquino).

The court emphasized the public interest in completing critical infrastructure projects and the preference for CCAA over receivership to preserve enterprise value.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions and provides case management directions for Nadire Atas, who has been declared a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed Ms. Atas's motion for recusal of the case management judge, finding no merit in her arguments regarding functus officio or apprehended bias.

The court also dismissed Ms. Atas's claims against the Chavalis and her counterclaims in the defamation proceedings due to her persistent failure to make required "Chavali requests" to advance them.

However, the court set aside the notings in default against Ms. Atas in the defamation proceedings to allow her to defend on the merits.

Further directions were given for motions for summary judgment in the defamation proceedings, dismissal motions by Peoples Trust and LawPro Defendants, and an interlocutory injunction motion.

The court emphasized the need for Ms. Atas to comply with case management orders to move the litigation forward, despite her ongoing appeals of the vexatious litigant declaration.

The self-represented defendant requested a decision on her request to bring a stand-alone recusal motion and an emergency case management conference.

The court directed that the recusal issues be brought forward in response to the pending motion for an interlocutory injunction, dismissing the request for a stand-alone motion.

The request for an emergency case management conference was also denied as no urgent issue was raised.

This case management endorsement addresses multiple procedural issues in complex litigation involving a litigant previously declared vexatious by the HRTO.

The court denied the litigant's last-minute adjournment request, clarified requirements for fee waivers, and rejected a request to bring a stand-alone motion for recusal, directing that bias allegations be raised within an existing interlocutory injunction motion.

The endorsement also set strict deadlines for the litigant's compliance with previous orders and responding materials, emphasizing the court's role in preventing vexatious conduct and ensuring proportional and reasonable litigation.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against her insurance company and broker after a nine-day trial, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff made unsupported allegations of bad faith and failed to accept reasonable offers to settle.

The plaintiff argued for a reduced costs award based on the principle of proportionality, given the modest size of her claim.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that doing so would require the plaintiff to pay costs totalling more than four times the value of her claim.

Applying the principle of proportionality and the factors under Rule 57, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing costs at $175,000 for the insurer and $115,000 for the broker.

The plaintiff, Diana Lynn Monk, sued her insurer (Farmers’ Mutual) and broker (Muskoka Insurance) for property damage to her log home caused by a contractor's negligent restoration work.

The court found that while the damage was covered under the "all-risk" homeowner's policy, the plaintiff failed to provide timely notice of the loss as required by Statutory Condition No. 6.

Despite the court's finding that the breach was imperfect compliance rather than non-compliance, the plaintiff's conduct was deemed unreasonable, and the insurer suffered significant prejudice due to the delay.

Consequently, the court denied relief from forfeiture and dismissed the claims against both the insurer and the broker.