Howard Manis

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 moving party, a secured creditor and former spouse of the bankrupt, brought a motion to remove the trustee in bankruptcy for cause under section 14.04 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The moving party alleged misconduct regarding the trustee's handling of proofs of claim and voting at the first meeting of creditors, as well as the trustee's attempts to sell a condominium owned by a corporation whose shares were solely owned by the bankrupt.

The court found that the trustee acted in accordance with the BIA at the meeting of creditors and that its actions to preserve the condominium were not unreasonable.

The motion to remove the trustee was dismissed.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion to compel the bankrupt to produce required documents and information, and to evict a residential tenant from the bankrupt's condominium unit to facilitate its sale.

The court granted the unopposed order compelling the bankrupt to produce documents.

However, the court dismissed the request to order financial institutions to produce documents without notice, and dismissed the eviction motion, finding that the Trustee cannot circumvent the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Trustee in bankruptcy sought court approval of its Amended Statement of Receipts and Disbursements.

The bankrupt objected, arguing that the fees of the Trustee and its counsel were excessive, particularly regarding time spent communicating with her children about the sale of a co-owned property and dealing with her complaints to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

The court found the fees to be fair and reasonable, noting the complexities involved and that the complaints were dismissed.

The Statement of Receipts and Disbursements was approved.

The appellant corporation appealed an Associate Justice's decision dismissing its motion under Rule 15.01(2) to be represented by a non-lawyer employee.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review.

The court upheld the Associate Justice's application of the Astrochrome test, finding no error in the determination that the proposed representative was not duly authorized by the board of directors and that it would be unfair to allow the representation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, the largest creditor of a bankrupt sports medicine clinic, brought an application under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The applicant alleged that the individual respondents flipped the bankrupt's assets and goodwill to a new corporation without paying fair market value, constituting a fraudulent conveyance or transfer at undervalue.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that any assets with realizable value were conveyed to the new corporation prior to bankruptcy, nor any evidence of the business's going concern value.

The applicant, an unsecured creditor, sought leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to sue the licensed insolvency trustee.

She alleged the trustee improperly accepted an assignment in bankruptcy made by the bankrupt's wife using a power of attorney, arguing the power of attorney was defective and the wife was an undischarged bankrupt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the power of attorney was valid, the wife was not mentally incapable under the Substitute Decisions Act, and the proposed claim disclosed no cause of action against the trustee.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendant judgment-debtor for failing to comply with court orders to attend an examination in aid of execution and produce bank records.

The defendant had previously been found in contempt and warned of incarceration if he did not comply.

Finding no mitigating factors and a flagrant disregard for the legal process, the court sentenced the defendant to 60 days in a provincial correctional institute, with conditions allowing for early release if he purged his contempt by participating in a meaningful examination and producing the required documents.

The plaintiffs, unpaid trades on a condominium construction project, brought motions to lift the statutory stays of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to pursue breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act against the individual directors of the insolvent developer.

The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motions to lift the stays, finding that the plaintiffs had previously settled their claims in exchange for a 'Trades Mortgage', the limitation period had expired, and there was no evidence of misappropriation or defalcation that would allow the claims to survive bankruptcy.

The actions against one of the directors were summarily dismissed.

A tenant applied for repayment of $7,500 characterized as a security deposit and sought reimbursement of prepaid rent totaling $90,000 for a one‑year residential lease.

The court considered whether the Residential Tenancies Act prohibits demanding or accepting prepaid rent and whether a tenant may voluntarily prepay rent.

The court held that while ss.105 and 106 of the Act prohibit landlords from demanding prepaid rent or unlawful security deposits, they do not prohibit a tenant from voluntarily offering prepaid rent nor prevent a landlord from accepting it.

Based on the evidence, including communications between the parties’ real estate agents, the court found the tenant voluntarily offered to prepay the annual rent.

However, the $7,500 security deposit for damages contravened the Act and had to be returned.