Jason Patrick Dutrizac

The defendants moved to set aside an order granting a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the LaSalle Property and to discharge the CPL.

The plaintiff had obtained the CPL without notice, claiming a plausible interest in the property via constructive or resulting trust and proprietary estoppel.

The defendants argued no triable interest and material non-disclosure.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding a triable issue existed and no material non-disclosure that would have altered the original CPL grant.

The court also dismissed a third party's motion to intervene.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) was successful in its motion for summary judgment to enforce guarantees against the defendants.

This endorsement addresses RBC's request for costs of both the motion and the action on a substantial indemnity basis, as provided for in the guarantees.

The defendants argued for partial indemnity costs due to alleged unfair conduct by RBC.

The court found no reason to depart from the contractual provision for substantial indemnity costs, as the defendants' allegations of inequitable conduct were not substantiated.

The court also found the requested amount of $84,490.38, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be fair and reasonable.

The applicants brought a motion to extend an interim receivership, replace the interim receiver (Raymond Chabot Inc. - RCI) with another firm (Doyle Salewski Inc. - DSI), and later amended their motion to appoint a sales agent (MBG Finance Limited - MBG) and adjourn the appointment of a full receiver.

The respondent Caisse Populaire Rideau-Vision D’Ottawa Inc. and RCI opposed, advocating for RCI to be confirmed as the full receiver.

The court dismissed the applicants' requests, finding no evidence to support removing RCI or appointing MBG as a sales agent, and confirmed RCI as the receiver to provide certainty for the business and facilitate a sales process.

In the context of ongoing inspection, receivership, and bankruptcy proceedings involving multiple corporations and a charitable foundation, counsel for the foundation sought a suspension of all proceedings pending determination of a contempt motion brought by the receiver against the foundation’s lawyer.

The moving party argued that the contempt allegation created a professional conflict of interest that would impair counsel’s ability to continue representing the client.

The receiver amended its motion to remove the requested contempt remedy against counsel, while reserving the right to bring such a motion in the future.

The court held that because the contempt relief against counsel had been removed, there was no present basis to suspend the proceedings.

Potential future contempt proceedings were insufficient to justify delaying the matters.

In complex receivership and bankruptcy-related proceedings involving a charitable foundation and associated corporations, the court addressed scheduling and procedural issues arising after prior bankruptcy orders.

Motions concerning the removal of directors and issues involving a third-party entity were adjourned on consent to dates to be set by the trial coordinator.

Examinations of certain responding parties were cancelled due to immigration concerns relating to re-entry into the United States.

The court directed that the examinations proceed in Buffalo, New York under Ontario procedural law, ordered the responding parties to seek necessary U.S. visa permissions, and required advance funding of travel costs for opposing counsel and the receiver.

The endorsement also addressed potential venue issues in a related promissory note action.

Investors and related applicants brought proceedings seeking receivership and related relief against several corporations and individuals connected to a charitable foundation.

Evidence showed the foundation transferred a Florida property to its directors shortly after learning of a pending motion seeking to restrain asset dissipation and appoint a receiver.

The court continued interim restraining and receivership orders and granted a full receivership order against certain corporate respondents other than the foundation.

The issue of whether the property transfer constituted a void transfer under s. 95(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was adjourned to the scheduled bankruptcy trial.

The court also prohibited the release of funds held in a lawyer’s trust account and approved the receiver’s reports.

Investors brought an ex parte motion to amend a prior receivership order and expand the powers of an Interim Receiver in proceedings concerning corporations involved in Ontario real estate development projects.

Evidence from an appointed inspector indicated that investment funds raised for development projects had been diverted, including funds used to renovate a Florida property and transferred through corporate accounts controlled by the directing individual.

Additional evidence suggested asset transfers, movement of funds to foreign accounts, and restructuring of corporate holdings while insolvency proceedings were pending.

Relying on statutory authority under the Courts of Justice Act, the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court amended the pleadings to add additional respondents and expanded the interim receiver’s authority to protect assets pending further proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a Rule 21.01(a) motion seeking determination of legal questions raised in the pleadings relating to a negligence claim arising from a workplace vehicle incident and employment-related claims.

The defendant argued the negligence claim was barred by s. 28 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and that employment-related claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance arbitration process under the collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the negligence claim was barred, given that the workplace safety authority had previously denied benefits on the basis that the injury did not arise in the course of employment.

However, the plaintiffs conceded that the employment-related claims could not proceed in court due to the collective agreement and ongoing labour arbitration.

Those portions of the statement of claim were struck and the plaintiffs were ordered to deliver an amended pleading.

Following the defendant’s successful motion to strike the statement of claim and the plaintiffs’ unsuccessful motion to amend, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs totaling more than $32,000, arguing the action resembled a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) intended to silence complaints made to the Office of the Superintendent in Bankruptcy.

The court accepted that the defendant was entirely successful but held that the defendant’s original costs outlines represented a reasonable expectation of costs payable by an unsuccessful party.

Costs were therefore fixed partly on a partial indemnity basis and partly on a substantial indemnity basis, with additional costs for the action.

The court declined to add additional amounts for Quebec counsel or expanded claims beyond the original outlines.