James S. Quigley

The applicant, a former tenant, sought to enforce a lease renewal option and claim damages for breach of contract against the landlord and sub-tenant.

The court found that both the landlord and sub-tenant breached their duties of good faith and contractual obligations to the applicant regarding the renewal.

However, no monetary damages were awarded to the applicant because the fair market rent for the renewed term would have resulted in a break-even scenario.

The application for specific enforcement was denied, and the applicant was ordered to return a $10,000 deposit to the sub-tenant.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed outcome.

The applicant sought a declaration that a bankrupt's notional gift of 50% equity in a matrimonial home to his spouse was a transfer at undervalue and void under s. 96(1)(b)(i) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that even if the transfer was at undervalue, it would exercise its equitable discretion not to declare it void.

The court considered factors such as the spouses' good faith, the lack of intention to defeat creditors, the spouse's non-monetary contributions to the family, and her need for the funds to support herself and her children.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing its motion for a litigation timeline, including documentary disclosure, examinations for discovery, and mandatory mediation.

The Master had found the motion premature because pleadings in the counterclaim had not yet closed, the respondent was not in breach of any court order or rule deadline, and no proper discovery plan had been presented.

The Superior Court upheld the Master's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The court affirmed that for a comprehensive discovery plan, all pleadings (main action and counterclaim) must be closed to define the issues, and that a "limited discovery plan" not complying with Rule 29.1.03(3) was insufficient.

The applicants sought an order under s. 56 of the Personal Property Security Act to discharge a financing statement registered by the respondents asserting a security interest in the applicants’ personal property.

The registration was based on purported unilateral “fee schedules” and invoices claiming millions of dollars for alleged intimidation and unauthorized use of a name.

The court found no security agreement existed and concluded the PPSA registration was filed without colour of right as part of a pseudolegal “OPCA” style scheme.

The court ordered the discharge of the registration and awarded statutory damages of $500 under s. 56(4).

Substantial indemnity costs were ordered and the directing mind of the corporate respondent was held jointly liable with the corporation.