Howard Floyd Manis

The Receiver brought a motion under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to recover payments made by the insolvent debtor company to various parties, primarily family members and a former employee, in the year prior to bankruptcy.

The court found that the company was insolvent during the relevant period.

Payments to several family members and a non-arm's length salesperson were ordered to be repaid as they were found to be either transfers at undervalue or preferential payments.

Claims against a landlord, an independent contractor, and a long-time manager were dismissed as the transactions were either supported by consideration or were arm's length.

The Receiver brought a motion seeking approval of its activities, fees, and a further distribution of funds, as well as authorization to assign the debtor into bankruptcy and act as Trustee.

The Receiver also sought an order declaring the principal of the debtor a vexatious litigant.

The principal opposed the motion, raising arguments generated by artificial intelligence, including allegations of structural conflict of interest and prematurity.

The court dismissed the principal's objections, finding them to be abusive relitigation of previously decided issues.

The court approved the Receiver's requests, authorized the bankruptcy assignment, and declared the principal a vexatious litigant.

The moving plaintiff sought summary judgment against a numbered company and its sole director to recover funds given for a failed cryptocurrency investment.

The company did not dispute its indebtedness but the director opposed personal liability.

The court found the director made fraudulent misrepresentations by guaranteeing that stop losses would protect the plaintiff's crypto investment capital when he had no basis to believe this was possible and later failed to disclose that stop losses could not be set on the chosen crypto platforms.

The court pierced the corporate veil under the Transamerica test, holding the director personally liable on a joint and several basis for the plaintiff's out-of-pocket loss of $152,086.41, being the principal investment less partial repayments.

As the loan agreement was tainted by fraud, the plaintiff was entitled to rescission and tort damages but not contractual interest.

The court heard competing motions by a court-appointed receiver and a third-party purchaser (BJC) regarding the sale of a commercial property.

The property was subject to a mortgage that fell into default, prompting the mortgagee to exercise its statutory power of sale and enter into an agreement with BJC.

Subsequently, a receiver was appointed over the mortgagor corporation in an oppression action and sought to sell the same property en bloc with another property to a different purchaser.

The court held that the receivership order under the Business Corporations Act and Courts of Justice Act did not suspend or supersede the mortgagee's pre-existing statutory power of sale under the Mortgages Act.

The receiver's motion to approve its sale was dismissed, and the mortgagee was permitted to complete its sale to BJC.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that upheld the Registrar's refusal to issue a security guard agency licence.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law by adopting the Registrar's findings regarding corporate control, and breached procedural fairness by rejecting sworn affidavits.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that it had properly reviewed the Registrar's factual findings for reasonableness and had not committed any material breach of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's decision to refuse its application for a security guard agency licence.

The Registrar refused the licence based on the involvement of the director's son, who was deemed an 'interested person' with a history of operating a noncompliant and bankrupt security agency.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Registrar's conclusion that the son was an interested person to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias, confirming the Registrar's decision to refuse the licence.

The plaintiffs sought costs in relation to an ex parte Mareva, Norwich and preservation order obtained against the defendants and for responding to a motion to set aside the order.

Farhad Eshfagh, who was partially successful in having the Mareva injunction lifted, also sought costs.

The court declined to award costs at the interlocutory stage, finding it premature to do so given that the matter remains ongoing and no final determination on the merits has been made.

The court rejected claims for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible or scandalous conduct warranting such an award.

Costs were ordered to be in the cause, to be determined at trial.

A creditor, Anirban Sarkar, brought a motion to annul a proposal filed by the debtor, Ketankumar Sukhlal Gore, under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The debtor had been repeatedly in default of his monthly payment obligations since July 2023 and was five months in arrears at the time of the hearing.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that the debtor's persistent defaults and lack of financial evidence demonstrated an inability to comply with the proposal's terms.

Consequently, the court annulled the proposal, resulting in the debtor being deemed to have made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's claim for repayment of loans to the defendant was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff and defendant were long-time friends, and the plaintiff loaned the defendant significant sums over several years.

The defendant did not dispute the loans or the amounts but argued the claim was out of time.

The court found the loans were not demand loans, and the limitation period was not suspended by part payments or acknowledgments made after the period expired.

The court concluded the claim was statute-barred and dismissed the action, despite finding the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order that dissolved a previously granted Mareva injunction.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the impugned order, and restored the Mareva injunction pending the final disposition of the appeal.

The court also ordered an expedited schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and awarded costs of the motion to the moving parties.

The decision concerns a motion to set aside or vary a Mareva injunction, Norwich order, and preservation order obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs in a cryptocurrency mining business dispute.

The court finds a strong prima facie case of fraudulent misrepresentation against most defendants, upholds the Mareva and preservation orders (except as against Farhad Eshfagh), and addresses the standards for full and frank disclosure on ex parte motions, risk of dissipation, and balance of convenience.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $10,000.

This decision concerns the penalty for civil contempt by the defendants, who breached a Mareva order by failing to disclose real property in Spain and denying ownership under oath.

The court finds that the appropriate sanction is to prohibit the defendants from dealing with the Spanish property and to require that net rental income from the property be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice until personal liability is determined.

The court also awards full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for the contempt motion, with a set-off for costs on the motion to set aside the Mareva injunction.

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

This decision concerns a dispute over millions of dollars lent to Trip Support Inc., a failed “Book Now, Pay Later” airline ticket financing business.

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order for the defendants’ failure to disclose assets as required by a Mareva injunction, while the defendants moved to set aside the injunction for inadequate disclosure by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for failing to disclose Spanish property, but also set aside the Mareva injunction due to the plaintiffs’ significant omissions in their ex parte motion materials.

The decision addresses the standards for contempt and the duty of full and frank disclosure in urgent injunction proceedings.

This costs endorsement follows summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Samuel Stern, in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court awards substantial indemnity costs of $62,817.10 to the plaintiff, finding the defendant’s conduct intentionally delayed the proceedings and wasted time and expense.

The court reviews the contractual entitlement to costs, the relevant statutory and case law principles, and the proportionality of the costs award.

The plaintiff, Samuel Stern, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Mehran Moeinifar, for an unpaid $1,000,000 loan secured by a mortgage and a personal guarantee.

The court granted summary judgment in the amount of $1,445,673.52 (including interest), finding no genuine issue for trial.

The defendant’s arguments regarding lack of Ontario jurisdiction and forum non conveniens were rejected, as the defendant had attorned to Ontario’s jurisdiction and the relevant contracts were made in Ontario.

The court found the guarantee enforceable and the defendant liable.

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion seeking a declaration that the debtor had no automatic right of appeal from an Approval and Vesting Order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and an order denying leave to appeal.

The debtor argued it had an automatic right of appeal under s. 193(a) or (c) of the BIA, or alternatively sought leave under s. 193(e).

The Court of Appeal held that the debtor had no automatic right of appeal, as the order did not affect future rights or result in a direct loss exceeding $10,000.

The Court also denied leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal lacked merit, did not raise an issue of general importance, and would unduly hinder the insolvency proceedings.

The plaintiff, Maurizio Sprovieri, sought summary judgment for repayment of loans totaling $314,278.52, including interest, made to the defendant, James Christopher Demetriou.

The defendant did not dispute the existence or amount of the loans but argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff contended the claim was not discoverable until after June 8, 2019, due to the defendant’s representations that repayment depended on the outcome of a separate lawsuit.

The court found a conflict in the evidence regarding these representations and directed the issue to proceed to a mini trial.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) brought a motion against Samuel J. Berkovits (debtor) and 1539058 Ontario Inc. (garnishee) to enforce a judgment via garnishment.

CIBC argued that the garnishee's statement was materially false and misleading, effectively amounting to no statement at all, due to late delivery, omissions, and a lack of disclosure regarding payments and reimbursements to the debtor.

The court found that the debtor and garnishee had arranged their finances to avoid garnishment.

The court deemed the garnishee's statement materially deficient and ordered the garnishee to provide extensive documentation regarding all compensation, payments, and personal expenses paid on behalf of the debtor.

The determination of the final amount payable by the garnishee was adjourned pending this disclosure.