Ian J. Klaiman

The appellant advanced funds to finance the cost of repairs by third parties to an aircraft owned by the respondent.

It brought a motion for a declaration that it had a non-possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant was not a 'repairer' under the Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that advancing funds to finance repairs does not constitute making a repair or bestowing skill, labour, or money on the aircraft.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to continue an interim injunction over an aircraft owned by the respondent, an agency of the Kingdom of Swaziland, claiming a non-possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act for funds advanced for refurbishment.

The court found the respondent was not immune under the State Immunity Act due to the commercial activity exception.

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant was not a 'repairer' under the Act, the limitation period had expired, and there was no irreparable harm to justify an injunction.

A motion by proposed intervenors was also dismissed.

The aircraft was ordered released to the respondent, with a seven-day stay pending appeal.

The plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee and to set aside a transfer of a debtor's half-interest in the matrimonial home to his spouse.

The responding defendants argued the demand under the guarantee was unconscionable because the bank denied access to corporate banking information after the guarantor ceased to be a signing officer.

The court held there was no evidence of inequality of bargaining power, predation, or an improvident bargain, and found no genuine issue for trial on unconscionability.

Applying the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, the court found multiple badges of fraud, including a transfer between spouses for nominal consideration shortly after notice of impending demand, and set aside the transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

Summary judgment was granted with partial indemnity costs.

The applicant appealed an order requiring it to post $175,000 as security for costs under r. 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge found that the master made palpable and overriding errors in concluding that the corporation was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and lacked sufficient assets in the province.

Evidence showed that the corporation’s directors and officers resided in Ontario and that it held approximately $1.2 million in a trust account in Ontario that was available to satisfy potential costs.

The court held the master misapprehended the evidence and drew unwarranted adverse inferences regarding the accessibility of the trust funds.

The appeal was allowed and the security for costs order set aside.

A secured lender applied to vary a criminal restraint order or obtain relief allowing enforcement of a collateral mortgage against property subject to forfeiture proceedings following a drug conviction.

The court considered the interaction between restraint orders under the Criminal Code and forfeiture orders under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act when a forfeiture order is appealed and stayed.

The court held that the restraint order ceased once the forfeiture order was made, even though the forfeiture order was stayed pending appeal.

As an innocent third‑party secured creditor with a prior registered mortgage in default, the lender was entitled to exercise its remedies under the Mortgages Act.

The court authorized the lender to enforce its mortgage and directed that any net sale proceeds remaining after satisfaction of secured debts be paid into court pending resolution of the criminal appeal.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of an interim settlement with the judgment debtor and related parties concerning disputed ownership and realization of a cottage property during receivership proceedings.

The moving party, a judgment creditor, opposed the settlement, arguing that stronger litigation prospects justified pursuing a declaration that the debtor solely owned the property.

The court applied the principle that courts generally defer to a receiver’s commercially reasonable business judgment where the receiver has fully analyzed the circumstances and considered stakeholder interests.

Considering litigation risk, potential appeals, mounting receivership costs, lack of estate funding, and the need for timely recovery for creditors, the court found the settlement commercially reasonable.

The settlement was therefore approved.