Jana Steele

The Interim Receiver, TDB Restructuring Limited, sought court approval to commence a marketing and sales process for the real properties of Thomas Dylan Suitor, who had been adjudged bankrupt.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the powers of an interim receiver under section 46 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act are limited to preservation and protection of assets, and do not extend to a full marketing and sale process unless the property is perishable or likely to depreciate rapidly in value.

The court found insufficient evidence that the properties met this threshold and noted that a full receivership under section 243 of the BIA would be required for such powers.

The applicants sought to compel Voreon Inc. to comply with a 2016 Settlement Agreement requiring the transfer of shares in Eminence Living Inc. and Higher Living Development Inc. The court reviewed the complex business history, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the impact of ongoing related proceedings, including the PSA Action and the Kayzan Distribution Application.

The court determined that the relief sought could not be granted at this time due to the unresolved status of these related proceedings and ordered that the application be heard contemporaneously with or immediately following the PSA Action.

Costs were awarded to Voreon.

This decision concerns a dispute over the rightful board of directors of Visionary Holdings Inc. and allegations of fraud and oppression.

The court determined that the Board of Directors as it existed on March 25, 2025, is the lawful board until further order.

The court also found a prima facie case of oppressive conduct and ordered the appointment of an inspector under the Business Corporations Act.

The court granted injunctive relief restraining Fan Zhou from participating in management and 3888 Investment Group Limited from altering the board pending investigation.

The court considered whether a 2024 capital call made by the general partner of a real estate development limited partnership was valid under the partnership agreements and the Limited Partnerships Act.

The applicant, Dream Impact, argued the call was invalid and that it had not defaulted, or, alternatively, that any default was cured by other partners' contributions.

The court found the capital call was valid, Dream Impact defaulted by not contributing, but that after the other partners funded Dream Impact’s share and its interest was diluted, there was no continuing default.

The applicant’s put notice was found invalid.

The applicant, the Ontario Securities Commission, sought an order under section 129 of the Securities Act to appoint a receiver and manager over all assets and properties of the respondents, a group of interconnected real estate investment entities.

The Commission alleged that the respondents diverted investor equity from specific limited partnership projects to unrelated properties, contrary to the limited partnership agreements and marketing materials.

The court rejected the respondents' argument that a strong prima facie case was required, holding that the Commission only needed to show serious concerns of a breach.

Although the court ruled that investor interview transcripts were hearsay and inadmissible for the truth of their contents, it found sufficient evidence of improper fund diversion to justify the receivership.

The court appointed the receiver over all properties, declining to exempt specific properties held by secured creditors, to ensure coordinated oversight.

The court considered whether a dispute over the calculation of an earn-out under a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) should be referred to an independent accountant, as provided in the PSA, or determined by the court.

The applicants argued that the dispute, which concerned whether certain partnership units received by the respondents should be included in the earn-out calculation, fell within the accountant’s jurisdiction.

The respondents argued the issue was a legal one for the court.

The court held that the PSA’s language and commercial context indicated the parties intended all unresolved disputed items regarding the earn-out to be determined by an independent accountant, not just calculation disputes.

The court directed the parties to submit their dispute to an independent chartered accountant in accordance with the PSA.

On an initial CCAA application following an NOI filed two days earlier under the BIA, the court granted relief to permit an insolvent trenchless construction group to continue restructuring as a going concern.

The court held that continuation under the CCAA was consistent with the remedial purposes identified in Century Services, and that an initial stay, extension of the stay to a non-applicant affiliate, temporary protection against calls on performance bonds, DIP financing, administration and directors’ charges, CRO approval, and critical supplier payment authority were all reasonably necessary.

The court also granted a lien regularization order tailored to ongoing construction projects, finding it preserved cash flow while substituting a court-supervised claims process that maintained lien claimants’ substantive rights.

The application was supported by the proposed monitor and senior secured lender, and was not opposed by the surety.

The applicant, Vivian Dubrofsky, sought interim injunctive relief under section 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) to restrain her mother, Maryka Weisz, from withdrawing funds from Art Tile Limited except for ordinary course expenses, pending final disposition.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried and the applicant met the evidentiary threshold, she failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court ordered that the Westmore Property not be encumbered and that certain trust funds remain in trust, but otherwise dismissed the requested relief.

The court granted a bankruptcy order against Thomas Dylan Suitor, finding that the applicant, The Fuller Landau Group Inc. (as Receiver of The Lion’s Share Group Inc.), established the necessary statutory requirements under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that Mr. Suitor was personally liable under promissory notes as both borrower and guarantor, that he owed debts exceeding $1,000, and that he had ceased to meet his liabilities generally as they became due.

The court also found the existence of multiple creditors and/or special circumstances justifying the order, and declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the order.

The applicant, Project Freeway Inc., sold shares of a business to the respondent, ABC Technologies Inc., under a share purchase agreement that included an earn-out provision.

The agreement contained an acceleration clause that would trigger immediate payment of the full earn-out if the respondent sold a material portion of the business's assets.

Following the transaction, the respondent entered into sale-leaseback transactions for real property and a factoring arrangement for accounts receivable.

The applicant argued these transactions triggered the acceleration clause, but the court found that these were ordinary course financing transactions that did not impact the earn-out targets.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay costs.

This decision concerns the interpretation of a “Material Adverse Change” (MAC) clause in a governance agreement between Simpson Oil Limited (SOL) and Parkland Corporation.

The court found that the departures of Parkland’s CFO and a majority of its senior management constituted a MAC under the agreement, thereby lifting restrictions on SOL’s voting and acquisition rights.

The decision turns on whether certain events listed in the MAC definition are mandatory triggers or merely illustrative, and the court concludes they are mandatory.

The Trustee, KSV Restructuring Inc., sought substantive consolidation of the estates of ProEx Logistics Inc., Guru Logistics Inc., and 1542300 Ontario Inc., as well as authorization to accept claims by Paul Randhawa and to approve the Trustee’s reports.

The court granted substantive consolidation and approved the Trustee’s reports, but declined to authorize the Trustee’s acceptance of Paul’s claims, holding that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provides a comprehensive code for the allowance and disallowance of claims, and that equity owners such as Rana Randhawa have no standing to challenge the Trustee’s decision to accept a claim.

The decision also addresses the effect of outstanding costs awards on standing and the finality of proceedings.

This motion concerned the approval of a sale process and transaction by The Fuller Landau Group Inc., acting as Receiver, for the Real Property owned by the Debtor, Chacon Strawberry Fields Inc. The Receiver sought approval for the sale, a vesting order, and an interim distribution to the first secured lender, First Source Financial Management Inc. The respondents (debtors) requested an adjournment and access to confidential sale information to facilitate a redemption, while a third-party (unsuccessful bidder) sought consideration of a late offer.

The court denied the respondents' and third-party's requests, finding their redemption plan insufficient and their attempts to interfere with the established sales process inappropriate.

The court granted the Receiver's motion in its entirety, approving the sale, vesting order, interim distribution, and a sealing order for commercially sensitive information, affirming the integrity and efficacy of the court-supervised sales process.

The applicants sought an assessment of a $510 million partial contingency fee paid to the lawyer respondents by the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund (RHTLF) and a determination of whether the $10 billion settlement proceeds were assets of the RHTLF Trust.

The court directed an assessment of the legal fees under the Solicitors Act, finding that the First Nations were liable to pay the bills and that special circumstances warranted assessment.

The court also confirmed that the settlement proceeds are assets of the Trust.

The proposed plaintiff, Frank Losak, sought leave to commence a class proceeding against the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) and its CEO, Mark White, alleging misrepresentations related to the sale of Pace Savings & Credit Union securities while Pace was under FSRA's administration.

The court determined that leave was required under the Liquidation Order.

It granted leave for the claim against FSRA, finding a viable cause of action not barred by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act or the Limitations Act, and that it would not undermine the liquidation.

However, leave was denied for the claim against Mark White due to statutory immunity under the FSRA Act, as no particulars of bad faith were provided.

The statement of claim against FSRA was allowed to be issued nunc pro tunc to February 28, 2024.

The respondent, Webuild S.P.A., brought a motion to stay an application by Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana De Salud S.A. (SCMS) to enforce a Chilean arbitral award in Ontario.

The award was originally against Astaldi S.p.A., and SCMS sought to enforce it against Webuild, arguing Webuild assumed Astaldi's liabilities through an Italian restructuring proceeding.

Webuild contended that the threshold issue of liability assumption under Italian law should be determined in Italy.

The court granted Webuild's motion for a temporary stay, finding Italy to be the forum non conveniens for this complex issue, citing the need to avoid conflicting judgments and costly duplication of resources across multiple jurisdictions.

The defendants, Michael Slattery and Skylark Holdings Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them.

They argued that the plaintiffs had not sustained any damages and had breached the immediate disclosure rule by failing to disclose a partial settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding damages due to conflicting evidence on reliance, and determining that the partial settlement did not significantly alter the litigation dynamics to constitute a breach of the immediate disclosure rule.

This motion arose from a family business dispute concerning the management of World Wide Carriers Ltd. (WWC) and related companies.

The applicants sought a declaration that the respondent, Sukhdev Dhaliwal, breached a prior court order (the "October Order") by not operating WWC in the ordinary course of business, and requested extensive access to WWC's documents, premises, and electronic systems.

The court found Sukhdev breached the October Order by terminating WWC's long-standing relationship with World Wide India (WWI), a key service provider primarily owned by the applicants, and transferring that business to a new company controlled by Sukhdev.

This action was deemed outside the ordinary course of business and prejudicial to the applicants' interests.

However, the court denied the applicants' requests for physical and electronic access to WWC and most broad documentary requests, concluding that granting such relief would give them undue control contrary to previous judicial determinations.

The applicants were granted access to documents and information they would have received as directors under the Business Corporations Act (Ontario).

Due to divided success, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award issued by CIETAC against the defendant for over $233 million CAD.

The defendant argued the motion constituted an improper partial summary judgment because the plaintiff's action also included a second stage seeking declarations against the defendant's wife regarding Ontario real properties.

The court recognized the arbitral award, finding no grounds to refuse enforcement under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, and held that partial summary judgment was appropriate as the recognition issue was discrete and would not cause delay or risk inconsistent findings.

The Trustee of the Alexander Morris Sharpe Trust sought the court's advice and directions on whether legal fees for David and Natasha Sharpe could be paid from the trust, which was established for the "sole and exclusive" benefit of their minor son, Alexander Morris Sharpe.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed, arguing the trust language was clear and restrictive.

The court ruled that the trust funds could not be used to pay the legal fees, as such payments would not be for the "sole and exclusive" benefit of the minor beneficiary, even if there was a collateral benefit.