D. Yiokaris

The defendants, a lawyer and his law firm, brought an interpleader motion seeking to pay disputed funds held in their trust account into court.

The funds arose from the sale of a property by the plaintiff corporation, 2823373 Ontario Inc., whose director, Diane Salman, was also a plaintiff.

A dispute arose among the corporation's shareholders regarding the release of these funds.

The plaintiffs opposed the interpleader motion, arguing the funds should be released to the corporation.

The court found that Ms. Salman, on behalf of the corporation, had initially instructed the defendants to hold the funds in trust, but later instructed their release.

The court denied the interpleader motion, concluding that the defendants were not neutral stakeholders and had a beneficial interest in the funds due to the lawyer's involvement as a director of the majority shareholder and the source of investment funds.

The court also declined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to order the funds into court.

Consequently, the defendants were ordered to release the disputed funds to 2823373 Ontario Inc.

This is a costs endorsement following a series of motions where the defendants (Royal Bank of Canada and others) and a non-party law firm (LD Law) were largely successful against the plaintiff.

The motions concerned a recusal application, a privilege claim regarding a property transfer from the deceased's estate, and a motion to compel the estate trustee to pass accounts.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants and full indemnity costs to LD Law, finding the plaintiff's positions meritless and contributing to litigation delay.

The plaintiff's claim of impecuniosity was rejected due to insufficient evidence and the principle that impecuniosity should not allow parties to disregard court rules with impunity.

The Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar, through its trustee, brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself from hearing a privilege motion and a motion to pass accounts.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought disclosure of the Estate Trustee's real estate lawyer's file and an order for the Estate to pass its accounts.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

It granted RBC's motion, ruling that the Estate Trustee had implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege over the real estate file by relying on legal advice to explain his conduct regarding the property transfer.

The court also found that RBC, as a judgment creditor, had standing under the Estates Act to compel the passing of the Estate's accounts, and ordered the accounts to be passed.

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.

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 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.

In a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act restructuring, the applicants sought court approval of a sale transaction to BlackRock Kelso Capital Corporation, authorization to assign certain store leases and designated contracts, and related relief.

A former employee also moved to be appointed as representative of terminated employees and to appoint representative counsel funded from transaction proceeds to assist with potential Wage Earner Protection Program Act claims.

The court approved the sale transaction and the assignment of leases and contracts under ss. 36 and 11.3 of the CCAA, finding the sale process reasonable and the transaction maximized value while preserving employment and ongoing operations.

The court declined to appoint representative counsel for terminated employees, holding the proceeding lacked the complexity seen in cases such as Nortel and Canwest, and that WEPPA claims could be addressed in the anticipated bankruptcy process by the trustee.

Funding representative counsel from the purchaser’s transaction funds was also found inappropriate.

Following dismissal of a civil action for delay at a status hearing, several defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The court assessed the reasonableness of the amounts claimed under Rules 57.01 and 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors governing proportionality and reasonable expectations.

The court found that the plaintiff’s reliance on extraneous affidavit evidence unnecessarily complicated the hearing and increased costs, and that the proceeding itself arose from the plaintiff’s dilatory conduct.

While the hourly rates generally complied with the applicable practice direction, the total amount sought by one defendant was considered excessive for a half‑day motion-like hearing.

The court reduced certain claimed amounts and fixed costs payable to the successful defendants.

At a Rule 48.14 status hearing, the plaintiff was required to show cause why a civil action alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence arising from real estate transactions should not be dismissed for delay.

The court reviewed the procedural history and found that the plaintiff had taken minimal steps to advance the action over several years, failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay, and had not diligently pursued service, pleadings, or discovery.

The court further held that the deaths of two key defendants created significant non-compensable prejudice because their evidence regarding the disputed transactions could no longer be obtained.

Applying the principles in Savundranayagam v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada and related authorities, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to satisfy both branches of the test required to avoid dismissal.

The action was therefore dismissed for delay.