Fozia Yousuf Chaudary

The applicants, a group of real estate development entities (Ashcroft Homes Group), sought to extend an initial Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) stay of proceedings to facilitate a restructuring.

Secured creditors, representing 84% of the total secured debt, opposed the extension and instead moved for the appointment of interim receivers.

The court found the applicants' restructuring plan lacked substance, noted a significant loss of confidence in management due to past conduct and outdated property valuations, and determined that the collaborative receivership approach proposed by the majority of secured creditors was more appropriate.

The motion to extend the CCAA stay was dismissed, and the motions for the appointment of receivers were granted.

This endorsement concerns the costs arising from successful anti-SLAPP motions brought by the Crown Defendants and the Better Business Bureau of Central Ontario Inc. (BBB) against A&H Asset Auctions Inc. The court considered the presumption of full indemnity costs under s. 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act.

It found that the indicia of a SLAPP suit were not present, and therefore, an award of full indemnity costs was not appropriate.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to both the Crown Defendants and BBB, fixing the amounts at $150,416 and $87,122.55 respectively.

The plaintiff, an auction business, brought an action for defamation against the Crown Defendants and the Better Business Bureau (BBB) regarding statements made about the plaintiff's relationship with the federal government in selling seized gemstones.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the statements related to matters of public interest.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to show its claims had substantial merit against the Crown Defendants, failed to show the defendants had no valid defences (including qualified privilege and justification), and failed to establish that the harm it suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application claiming that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) seized funds from her father's accounts that rightfully belonged to her from an inheritance in Nigeria.

The father supported the application, contradicting his own previous sworn evidence that the funds were his own inheritance.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the father held the funds in trust for the applicant or that any identifiable funds belonging to the applicant were seized by the CRA.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 to the CRA, payable jointly and severally by the applicant and her father due to their complicity in bringing the misconceived application.

The applicant and the Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought motions to determine the distribution of the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent owed significant child support arrears, while a non-party brother held a default judgment against the respondent, and the CRA held liens for tax arrears.

The court held that under the Creditors' Relief Act, the support arrears had priority over the non-party's civil judgment, but not over the CRA's liens for debts owed to the Crown.

The court ordered the CRA liens to be paid first, followed by the support arrears.

The applicant was awarded costs of $10,170 against the respondent.

The Monitor in a CCAA proceeding sought to declare void as an unjust preference $12 million in HST payments made by the insolvent debtor to the Canada Revenue Agency shortly before commencing a proposal proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the payments were funded by an inter-company loan specifically earmarked for the tax liability, meaning the transaction was economically neutral to the debtor and did not prejudice the recovery of unsecured creditors.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) and Rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and constituting an abuse of process.

The self‑represented plaintiff attempted to sue federal officials and government counsel following unsuccessful tax litigation relating to a reassessment request and Canada Child Tax Benefit claim.

The court found the pleaded causes of action, including negligence, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, misfeasance in public office, breach of duty of good faith, and malicious falsehood, lacked the essential elements required in law.

The action was also an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already determined by the courts.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and costs were awarded to the defendants.