D. Ward

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to show cause why their consolidated action, originating from claims commenced between 2000 and 2007 regarding the defendants' management of mortgaged properties, should not be dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for at least seven years of delay, largely stemming from their failure to properly scan and index property management documents.

Furthermore, the court found that the defendants would suffer actual prejudice due to the death and unavailability of key witnesses.

The action was dismissed for delay.

A law firm deposited a fraudulent bank draft into its trust account and subsequently issued a certified trust cheque for $600,000 to the responding party, an innocent third party who was owed a significant debt by the law firm's client.

The law firm's insurer, having covered the bank's loss, brought a motion to recover the funds from the responding party, arguing mistake of fact.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that as between two innocent parties, the law firm must bear the loss because it was in a position to prevent the fraud through basic diligence but acted carelessly.

The applicants sought orders under section 61 of the CCAA to recognize and give effect in Canada to two orders made in their US Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

The US orders established a claims bar date and discharged claims not filed by that date.

The applicants sought to use these orders to bar the respondents' claims in an ongoing Ontario tort action.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants should seek enforcement of the US orders within the specific Ontario action rather than seeking a general recognition order under section 61 of the CCAA.

This approach allows the court in the action to assess the equities on a party-by-party basis.

A reference was conducted to determine the amount owing under a mortgage following a prior order requiring the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the mortgaged property.

The self-represented defendant repeatedly attempted to adjourn the hearing and sought to introduce an unsigned accounting sheet purportedly prepared by a chartered accountant without complying with Rule 53.03 regarding expert reports.

The court excluded the document as impermissible expert evidence and rejected arguments that certain payments should reduce interest calculations differently, relying on the mortgage’s standard charge terms allowing the lender to apply payments after default in its discretion.

Based on the lender’s witness testimony and documentary evidence, the court determined the outstanding mortgage debt.

Costs were awarded to the lender on a solicitor-and-client basis pursuant to the mortgage terms.

In ongoing proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the applicants sought approval of an Employee Hardship Application Process and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The requested hardship process was unopposed and approved.

Certain noteholders sought conditions requiring enhanced reporting and procedural safeguards in relation to the claims process and employee claims.

The court held that the statutory test under s. 11(6) of the CCAA was satisfied because the circumstances warranted the extension and the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence.

The stay extension was granted, while proposed procedural changes to the claims process were found more appropriately addressed through a motion to vary existing orders.

The applicants, comprising the First Leaside group of companies, sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to conduct an orderly wind-down of their operations.

The court found that the applicants, viewed as a group, were insolvent and that the CCAA could be appropriately used for a liquidating proceeding.

The court also granted super-priority Administration and D&O Charges, dismissing arguments from secured creditors that provincial paramountcy issues precluded such priorities without further notice.