Jane O. Dietrich

The decision concerns the interpretation of a settlement agreement between siblings Marvin Rubner, Joseph Rubner, and Brenda Bistricer regarding the division of special shares in Kalber Developments Incorporated, a family corporation, and the estate of their mother, Eda Rubner.

The court finds that the Kalber Settlement Agreement and the Will Settlement Agreement do not operate as a disclaimer or renunciation by Brenda of her interest in the special shares, and that Joseph, not being a party to the agreements, cannot claim a benefit under them.

The application by Marvin is granted, and costs are fixed against Joseph.

The Applicants, Apollo Technology Capital Corporation and Nobul Technologies Inc., sought orders regarding the conduct of the upcoming annual general meeting (AGM) of MediPharm Labs Corp., including the appointment of an independent chair, the appointment of TSX Trust as scrutineer, and a declaration regarding the validity of their Dissident Circular.

The Court declined to grant the requested relief, finding no evidence of impropriety or unfairness in the process established by MediPharm’s by-laws and confirming that the issues raised could be addressed after the AGM if necessary.

The court considered whether to dismiss a bankruptcy application brought by Bioventus, LLC against Trindent Consulting Management International Inc. under section 43(7) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, in light of Trindent’s prior U.S. Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The court found that Canadian law allows for concurrent insolvency proceedings and that the statutory remedies under the BIA are not property of the debtor’s estate.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the bankruptcy application may proceed.

The court granted Jason Allison's motion for production of financial documents from CMC Consumer Credit Limited, CMC Capital Inc., and Michael Smith.

Allison was found entitled to the documents as a shareholder under a Shareholders’ Agreement, as a trust beneficiary, or as an intended director.

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments regarding clean hands, limitation periods, and the status of Allison as a defaulting or beneficial shareholder.

The court also fixed costs in Allison’s favour.

The applicant, Harry Littler, a director of CMC Credit Ltd., sought an order compelling the respondents to provide access to CMC’s books and records, including loan agreements.

The respondent, Michael Smith, objected on the basis of privacy legislation (PIPEDA) and alleged improper purpose.

The court found that directors have an unconditional statutory right to inspect corporate records under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, and that PIPEDA does not prevent such access.

The application was granted, and costs were fixed in favour of the applicant.

The applicant, Samer Bishay, sought an order under the Bank Act compelling the Bank of Montreal to reinstate his bank accounts, a trial on damages, and a Norwich Order for disclosure of information leading to the account closure.

The court found that s. 627.17 of the Bank Act only requires banks to open accounts under certain conditions, not to maintain them indefinitely, and that the common law right to terminate banking relationships on reasonable notice was not displaced.

The application was dismissed, including the request for a Norwich Order, as the applicant's claim was found to be speculative.

This decision concerns a comeback motion on a Mareva injunction originally granted against Alykhan Karmali and AK&H Ltd. The plaintiff, Latif Nanji, alleges that he was induced to invest millions of dollars in a business venture based on fraudulent misrepresentations by the defendants.

The court reviews the background of the investments, the lack of supporting documentation, and the use of funds by the defendants.

The court finds that the plaintiff has established a strong prima facie case for fraudulent misrepresentation and that the risk of dissipation of assets justifies the continuation of the Mareva injunction.

The decision concerns an application under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for approval of a plan of arrangement by The Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. and 16834434 Canada Inc., opposed by Murchinson Ltd. (on behalf of certain noteholders).

The court granted the final order approving the arrangement, which restructures the company’s senior notes, and dismissed Murchinson’s related oppression application.

The reasons address the fairness and reasonableness of the arrangement, the appropriateness of third-party releases, and the standing of Murchinson to bring an oppression claim.

The decision addresses two competing motions for the appointment of representative counsel for investors in a receivership proceeding involving Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court reviews the procedural background, the need for representative counsel, and the competing proposals from Aird & Berlis LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

The court ultimately appoints Aird & Berlis LLP as representative counsel, finding their approach and fee structure preferable for efficiency, transparency, and certainty.

This decision concerns three related matters: the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. and related companies, the granting of a Mareva injunction against Sanford Sussman, and the scheduling of a motion to appoint representative counsel for investors.

The court finds the appointment of B. Riley Farber Inc. as receiver to be in the public interest and grants the Mareva injunction on consent.

The decision addresses the statutory and common law bases for receivership, the public interest in protecting investors, and the coordination of proceedings involving multiple stakeholders.

The court considered an application by Aggregated Investments Inc. for the appointment of a receiver over the assets of the respondents, including real property, under the Courts of Justice Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The application was dismissed.

The court found that a bona fide defence existed regarding the underlying debt, specifically whether Aggregated breached its duty of good faith by accepting a reduced recovery and shifting value to a related party.

The court held that the appointment of a receiver was not just or convenient in the circumstances, given the triable issue as to the propriety of the debt and the conduct of Aggregated.

The court granted Alexander Shifrin a declaration that he is a 15% shareholder in LDF Frozen Foods Inc., along with related relief, including rectification of the share register, production of corporate documents, and a direction for a trial on damages.

The decision turned on the credibility of the parties and the existence of an enforceable agreement for Shifrin’s investment and shareholding.

The court found that Shifrin had not been repaid his investment and was entitled to the shares, and that his claim was not statute-barred.

The decision concerns an application by Sherif Gerges Pharmacy Professional Corporation and Sherif Gerges for the appointment of an inspector under the Ontario Business Corporations Act to investigate the business and financial affairs of Seva Drug Mart Inc. and Eglinton Drugs Inc., as well as for leave to bring derivative actions on behalf of those corporations and Woodbine Downs Healthcare Realty Inc. The court granted the appointment of an inspector and leave to bring the proposed actions, rejecting the respondents' arguments that arbitration provisions applied and that certain claims were statute-barred.

The court also addressed the allocation of costs for the investigation and the proposed actions.

The Applicants, The Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. and 16834434 Canada Inc., sought an interim order under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to approve a plan of arrangement and to direct the holding of a meeting of Senior Noteholders.

The Court granted the interim order, finding the Applicants acted in good faith and met the statutory requirements.

The Court also approved the classification of all Senior Noteholders as a single class for voting purposes, rejecting the respondent's argument for separate classes.

The order included a limited stay of proceedings and set out the process for the upcoming meeting and final order hearing.

Gray Jay Estates Inc. sought a court order to vary the “Payment Amount” under an assignment of indebtedness and security agreement, which would have increased the amount payable by NE SPC II LP (Blacksail) by approximately $1 million.

The dispute centered on whether cash on hand should have been used to repay a DIP facility before closing, and whether a term should be implied into the agreement to require such repayment.

The court found no basis to imply such a term, holding that the contract’s language was clear and that the parties had not agreed to the adjustment sought.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to Blacksail.

The court considered an application by Sherif Gerges and related entities for a Mareva injunction, a preservation order, and a production order regarding the proceeds of sale of certain real estate.

The court found that while there was a strong prima facie case, the requirements for a Mareva injunction and a preservation order were not met, as the funds in question had already been disbursed and were not readily identifiable.

The court also declined to order further production of documents at this stage.

Costs were fixed against the applicants.

The applicant, Junhua Wang, sought the appointment of a receiver and manager over real property owned by the respondents, Hong Jing and Lihan Jing, under a matured and unpaid mortgage.

The respondents objected, arguing the mortgage was part of a broader financing arrangement involving third parties and ongoing litigation.

The court found the appointment of a receiver just and convenient, given the default, the risk to the applicant’s security, and the lack of evidence that the applicant was party to the broader arrangements.

The court also addressed evidentiary objections regarding the applicant’s affidavits and settled the process for finalizing the receivership order.

The applicants, Steven Bulut and 1091369 Ontario Inc., sought leave to appeal an arbitral award granting Marko N. Bulut a 50% constructive trust interest in real property.

The court declined to grant leave, finding no error of law in the arbitrator’s application of the law of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, limitation periods, or issue estoppel/abuse of process.

The court also declined to recognize the award under s. 50 of the Arbitration Act at this time, as no application for such relief was before the court and certain matters remained outstanding before the arbitrator.

The defendants (Insurers) moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's (Freesen) claim for environmental property damage coverage.

The claim arose from an underground storage tank leak.

The Insurers denied coverage based on two exclusions: a storage tank exclusion and a non-compliance with statute exclusion.

The court granted summary judgment based on the storage tank exclusion, finding the policy's clear wording did not approve the tank as a covered location, despite disclosure in the application.

The court rejected the non-compliance exclusion argument due to insufficient evidence of willful non-compliance.

Costs were fixed at $17,500 for the defendants.

The defendant, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

Sun Life argued that the STD claim was barred by an out-of-country exclusion in the policy, and the LTD claim was barred by a pre-existing condition exclusion.

The court found that the out-of-country exclusion did not suspend the 26-week maximum STD benefit period, thus denying further STD benefits due to the plaintiff's 16-week absence abroad.

For the LTD claim, the court held that the pre-existing condition exclusion applied, ruling that the severity of the pre-existing condition at the time coverage began was irrelevant, as long as the disability resulted directly or indirectly from it.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing both claims.