Gregory Ryan Azeff

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) brought a motion for approval of the sale of a commercial property co-owned by the insolvent estate and a third party.

The sale was opposed by certain beneficiaries who argued the sale price was improvident and the ETDL failed to follow court-ordered sales processes.

The co-owner initially opposed the sale but later consented.

The court applied the Soundair principles and approved the sale, finding that the property had been adequately marketed, the price was not improvident given the property's derelict state and ongoing operating losses, and the co-owner had waived any procedural irregularities.

This endorsement addresses two motions arising from a cybertheft of approximately $9.7 million from the applicant's bank account at the respondent bank.

The applicant, FACTOR, sought additional productions from the Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS), alleging a parsimonious approach to disclosure.

BNS, supported by other respondents, sought to convert the application into an action, citing material facts in dispute and complex issues.

The court largely granted FACTOR's production requests, ordering BNS to provide more details from its internal investigation, session logs (with confidentiality), and internal alert system details (with a secure mechanism).

The court also ordered the additional respondents, James Campagna and 10426377 Canada Inc., to produce all relevant documents.

The motion to convert the application to an action was dismissed as premature, with the court noting that the necessity of conversion could be revisited once the respondents deliver their full evidence.

The Court-Appointed Receiver brought a motion seeking to uphold the disallowance of a claim by Oscar Furtado against Go-To Stoney Creek Elfrida LP and Inc. for guarantee fees.

The Receiver argued the fees were undisclosed, related-party agreements made in breach of Furtado's fiduciary duties and were not reasonable or competitive.

The court found that Furtado, as a fiduciary, failed to provide full disclosure of the lucrative guarantee fee arrangement to investors, as it was not adequately disclosed in the limited partnership agreement, marketing brochure, or the auditor-withdrawn financial statements.

The Receiver's disallowance of the claim was upheld.

The Court-appointed Receiver brought a motion to compel the principal of the Receivership Respondents to release approximately 11,271 emails.

The principal opposed the motion, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that the emails belonged to the corporate entities, not the principal personally, and that the Receiver was authorized under the Receivership Order to investigate the entities' affairs, which included reviewing the emails.

The motion was granted and the principal was ordered to release the emails.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy sought declarations that a property sale by the bankrupt, Ian Ross McSevney, to a corporation controlled by his sister, Elaine McSevney, was a transfer at undervalue under section 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and that Elaine McSevney was privy to the transfer.

The court found that the relationship between the siblings was not arm's length, that the bankrupt was insolvent or rendered insolvent by the transfer, and that he intended to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors.

The court determined the fair market value of the property and the actual consideration paid, concluding that the transfer was conspicuously less than fair market value.

The motion was granted, and Elaine McSevney and her corporation were ordered to pay the difference to the Trustee.

The Receiver brought a motion for a contempt order against the respondent for failing to comply with a Receivership Order.

The court previously found the respondent in contempt.

At the sentencing hearing, the court considered the respondent's subsequent efforts to purge his contempt, including attending examinations and providing documents, as well as his apology.

Applying the Cavalon factors, the court declined to impose a custodial sentence but ordered the respondent to pay a $15,000 fine, declaring it a penalty under s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court order appointing a receiver and manager for Go-To Developments Holdings Inc. and related entities, and continuing freeze directions, following an Ontario Securities Commission investigation into alleged securities law breaches, including misappropriation of investor funds by Oscar Furtado.

The appellants challenged the application judge's denial of an adjournment and the admission of Mr. Furtado's examination transcripts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the adjournment denial, especially in light of fresh evidence demonstrating further misconduct by Mr. Furtado.

The court declined to address the admissibility of transcripts as the issue was not raised below.

This endorsement provides reasons for granting an initial order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to Trinity Ravine Community Inc., a registered charitable organization developing a senior citizens' life lease community project.

The applicant faced insolvency due to escalating construction costs and demands for deposit refunds from purchasers.

The court found the applicant met the CCAA requirements, including insolvency and good faith, and that a CCAA process was appropriate despite it being a real estate development, given its charitable purpose and the potential for maximizing creditor recoveries through a dual-track sale and investment solicitation process (SISP).

An initial administration charge was also granted to secure professional fees.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the moving party sought an order declaring that the limitation period for its action against the debtor was suspended by a prior tolling order, or alternatively, an order lifting the stay of proceedings nunc pro tunc to regularize its action.

The court held that the tolling order did not apply to third-party claims against the debtor.

Furthermore, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Green, the court held it had no authority to grant a nunc pro tunc order lifting the stay because the moving party failed to seek leave before the limitation period expired.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellants appealed two orders made by a case management judge authorizing the sale of an estate property and setting the terms of the sale.

The respondent Estate Trustee During Litigation brought a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that the orders were interlocutory and leave to appeal had not been obtained.

The Divisional Court held that the orders were interlocutory because they did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties to the net proceeds of the sale.

The court further held that leave to appeal is required for interlocutory orders under s. 10(1) of the Estates Act.

As the appellants did not seek leave, the appeal was quashed.

The court also noted that the appeal would have been dismissed on the merits in any event.

The moving party sought the release of escrow funds following the sale of a distressed condominium project.

The dispute centered on whether the Minutes of Settlement required the property owner to pay property taxes that accrued prior to closing.

The court applied principles of commercial contractual interpretation and found that the plain language of the agreement only required the owner to continue paying operating expenses it was already paying at the time of execution.

Since property taxes had been deferred for months prior to the agreement, the owner was not obligated to pay them.

The court ordered the disputed funds released to the moving party.

In a bankruptcy proposal proceeding, the fourth mortgagee brought a motion for a vesting order to purchase the debtor's property, while a competing purchaser brought a cross-motion to set aside a previous vesting order on the basis of lack of notice.

The court found that the competing purchaser had been unfairly deprived of notice and the opportunity to participate in the hearing.

The court terminated all previous agreements of purchase and sale and ordered a new confidential bidding process to ensure fairness.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation brought a motion to quash an appeal in a matter involving the estate of Elias Gefen.

The appeal involved multiple parties including the estate trustee, family members, and various institutions.

The motion to quash was granted on March 14, 2019.

The court awarded costs of the motion and appeal to the Estate Trustee During Litigation in the amount of $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, payable jointly by the appellant and respondents to the motion.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) moved to quash an appeal on the grounds that it should have been brought to the Divisional Court under section 28 of the Estates Act.

The respondents argued that the ETDL's appointment was made under Rule 75 of the Rules of Civil Procedure or the court's inherent jurisdiction, not the Estates Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the appointment order was made pursuant to the Estates Act and that the allegation of a constructive trust "touches on" the validity of the will or grant of administration within the meaning of section 28.

The appeal was quashed and the matter was directed to the Divisional Court.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) for the estate of Elias Gefen brought a motion seeking payment of his significant fees and disbursements from disputed estate assets, a priority charge on these assets, and permission for interim payments.

The motion was supported by Harry Gefen and the estate of Yehuda Gefen, and opposed by Henia Gefen, Harvey Gefen, and a non-party co-tenant.

The court found that the ETDL was entitled to payment from the 'Property Interest' (disputed assets) and a charge on it, interpreting the original appointment order broadly to include assets with contingent estate interests.

The court denied the ETDL's request to further mortgage the properties to raise funds, citing potential adverse effects on non-parties.

The ETDL was granted the right to make interim payments from available distributions, subject to a final passing of accounts.

Costs were awarded against the opposing parties personally and the balance from the Estate.

The applicant tenant operated an adult entertainment club and sought a declaration that a notice of termination from the respondent landlord was invalid.

The tenant argued the lease had been validly extended by oral agreement with the previous landlord, while the new landlord argued the extension violated the Statute of Frauds and was unregistered under the Land Titles Act.

The court found the lease extension was valid due to part performance and binding on the new landlord because it had actual notice of the tenancy.

However, the court held the landlord was not required to maintain the municipal owner's licence for the club.

The court declared the termination notice invalid and granted the tenant relief from forfeiture, providing a reasonable time to obtain its own licence.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitral award under the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The court found that the arbitrator committed a reviewable error by deciding the issue on a theory not argued by the parties, which amounted to the applicant being unable to present its case.

However, the court declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the award.

The court found that the arbitrator's ultimate decision on the merits was reasonable, the contract interpretation involved mixed fact and law subject to deference, and remitting the matter for a rehearing would serve no practical purpose.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding them liable for insider trading and tipping contrary to s. 76 of the Securities Act.

The Commission found that a corporate lawyer tipped an investment advisor about three corporate transactions, who then tipped others in a chain.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings against the lawyer and three of the investment advisors, finding the Commission's inferences from circumstantial evidence were reasonable.

However, the court allowed the appeal of one investment advisor at the end of the chain, finding the Commission made factual errors in concluding he ought reasonably to have known the information came from an insider.

The sanctions against the unsuccessful appellants were upheld.

This application sought the appointment of a receiver over the surface rights of the Kerr-Addison Mine, which had been inactive for 20 years.

The applicant, Gold Candle Ltd., had acquired the mining rights and aimed to recommence operations.

The respondents opposed, alleging the applicant was frustrating negotiations.

The court, exercising its discretion under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, balanced the parties' rights and considered the significant public interest factors, including health and safety hazards, severe local economic impact, unpaid municipal taxes, and unaddressed creditor claims.

Finding it just and convenient, the court granted the application, appointing A. Farber & Partners Inc. as receiver to conduct a court-supervised sale of the Mine, anticipating remediation, economic revitalization, and debt repayment.

The bankrupt applied for discharge from bankruptcy.

On the first day of the hearing, the bankrupt raised preliminary issues regarding the standing of an opposing creditor, whether an alleged undue preference could be considered, and the admissibility of documents.

The court held that the opposing creditor had standing because its proof of claim had not been disallowed.

The court deferred the undue preference issue, noting a separate proceeding had been scheduled to determine it, and ordered that the discharge hearing be deferred until that issue was resolved.

The court declined to rule on document admissibility in advance.