I. Klaiman

The moving defendant sought to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained against him by the plaintiff bank in an action to enforce a corporate guarantee.

The plaintiff had inadvertently noted the defendant in default before the 20-day deadline to defend had expired.

The court admitted a portion of a settlement-privileged email to assess when the defendant learned of the claim.

Applying the five-factor test, the court found the defendant moved promptly, had a plausible excuse for the default, and raised an arguable misrepresentation defence.

The court set aside the default judgment, concluding it was in the interests of justice to allow the defendant to defend the claim on its merits.

The applicant vendor brought a motion for leave to obtain a writ of possession for an industrial property after the respondent purchaser breached a settlement agreement by failing to pay municipal taxes on time.

The respondent cured the breach by paying the tax arrears before the hearing and sought relief from forfeiture.

The court applied the three-part test for relief from forfeiture, noting the applicant's own failure to fulfill environmental remediation obligations under the agreement.

Finding that forfeiture of a multi-million dollar property for a cured tax default would be disproportionate, the court granted relief from forfeiture and dismissed the motion.

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.