Geoffrey B. Morawetz

This motion arose in a bankruptcy proceeding where the Trustee sought an order compelling a secured claimant to provide information regarding her claim and a direction to keep this information confidential from a foreign representative who had an indirect financial interest in the estate and was involved in collateral litigation against the claimant.

The claimant refused to provide the information without strict confidentiality, while the foreign representative sought to reserve rights to access it later.

The court declined to issue the requested directions, emphasizing that the Trustee should follow the statutory process for claim adjudication and that issues related to collateral litigation should be addressed in those separate proceedings.

The Receiver of Bridging Finance Inc. sought court approval to terminate a sale and investment solicitation process (SISP) and proceed with an orderly liquidation ("Status Quo Option"), and to seal confidential appendices.

An unnamed unitholder opposed, requesting further consultation, a unitholder vote, and a new solicitation process for liquidation management.

The court denied the unitholder's adjournment request, finding no evidence to support it.

The court granted the Receiver's requests, deferring to the Receiver's business judgment, which was supported by Representative Counsel and a substantial majority of unitholders.

The Corporation of the City of Windsor sought to continue an injunction against "Persons Unknown" who were blocking the Ambassador Bridge.

The court had previously granted an interim injunction.

The City argued that protesters continued to breach municipal by-laws and the prior court order, and there was a risk of continued blockades.

The court found that the City established a strong prima facie case of by-law breaches and defiance of the prior order.

Applying the test for statutory injunctions under s. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the court granted a permanent injunction, emphasizing the public interest in upholding the rule of law and that Charter rights do not protect unlawful conduct.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

The Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association (APMA), supported by the City of Windsor and the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain a protest that had obstructed access to the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario.

The protest, related to COVID-19 restrictions, caused significant economic harm to the automotive industry and disrupted the local community.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for injunctions and the modified test for statutory injunctions to enforce municipal by-laws.

The court found overwhelming evidence of serious issues to be tried (public nuisance, intentional interference with economic relations) and irreparable harm to the economy and community.

It concluded that the balance of convenience strongly favored granting the injunction, emphasizing that Charter rights to freedom of expression do not extend to unlawful acts that impede public access and cause substantial harm.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry deeming a competing company's aggregate permit application complete.

The Ministry processes applications on a first-come, first-served basis.

The applicant argued the competing application was incomplete as it failed to meet the requirements of the Provincial Standards and Ministry Policies regarding environmental and cultural heritage reports.

The Divisional Court found the Ministry's decision unreasonable because it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for departing from its own mandatory policies when assessing completeness.

The decision was quashed, but the court declined to issue an order of mandamus, instead remitting the matter back to the Ministry for reconsideration.

The applicant university brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings for an order extending the stay period and an order approving the refinancing of its debtor-in-possession (DIP) facility with the provincial government.

The court found that the applicant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that the cash flow forecast demonstrated sufficient liquidity to operate during the extended stay period.

The court granted the requested orders, noting the significant interest rate reduction under the replacement DIP facility.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) denying a film tax credit on the basis that its production, Reflections, was not a 'documentary'.

The applicant argued the OMDC's interpretation was unreasonable and fettered by anti-evangelical Christian bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and found the OMDC's interpretation of 'documentary' and its application to the production were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Auditor General of Ontario sought declarations that it had the authority under the Auditor General Act to compel grant recipients, specifically Laurentian University, to provide information and records subject to solicitor-client, litigation, or settlement privilege for audit purposes.

Laurentian University argued that the Act did not contain the clear and unambiguous language required to abrogate such fundamental privileges.

The court dismissed the Auditor General's application, holding that sections 10 and 27.1 of the Auditor General Act did not explicitly or unambiguously confer the power to compel disclosure of privileged information, and that privilege cannot be abrogated by inference.

The applicant, a city councillor, sought judicial review of a decision by the city council to suspend his remuneration for 270 days based on a report by the integrity commissioner finding he engaged in sexual harassment.

The applicant alleged bias against both the commissioner and the council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the claims against the commissioner, finding he acted fairly and reasonably accommodated the applicant's health issues.

However, the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias against the city council due to public statements and conduct by members before the investigation concluded.

The court quashed the council's sanction decision but, rather than remitting it, imposed the same 270-day suspension itself due to the severity of the misconduct and the lack of an unbiased decision-maker.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside the noting in default of the respondent and permanently staying a third party claim brought under the Construction Act.

The appellant had commenced the third party claim without seeking the required leave and sought to convert it to an ordinary civil proceeding more than five years after the limitation period expired.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a motion for leave to convert a construction lien third party claim must be brought before the expiry of the limitation period, and the motion judge made no error in refusing to grant leave nunc pro tunc.

The applicant brought a consent motion within its CCAA proceedings for approval of Sale Procedures and an extension of the Stay Period.

The court found the applicant acted in good faith and with due diligence, and granted the motion, extending the Stay Period to December 22, 2021, and setting a bid deadline of December 31, 2021.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Lococo J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable forthwith to the plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's interpretation of a Supreme Court of Canada costs order.

The motion judge had found the plaintiff was only required to repay $12,180, while the defendants argued the order required repayment of $200,000.

Rather than deciding the appeal, the Divisional Court ordered the parties to jointly apply to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification of its own order, finding this to be the most efficient and proportionate method of resolving the ambiguity.