Jeffrey Kroeker

The applicant, FUNG-BC Holdings Ltd., sought a bankruptcy order against Gary Man Kin Ng based on two outstanding debts: a $4 million guarantee and a $5.194 million IIROC financial penalty.

Mr. Ng disputed the guarantee debt, arguing it was covered by a prior settlement agreement and covenant not to sue with Bridging Finance Inc., and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The court found the settlement documents unambiguously excluded the $4 million loan, and while the IIROC debt alone wouldn't suffice, it could be considered alongside the valid guarantee debt.

The court dismissed Mr. Ng's motion and granted the bankruptcy order, finding he had committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to meet significant liabilities.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add numerous corporate and individual defendants in an action alleging oppression and wrongful dismissal related to a restaurant business.

The motion was brought under Rule 5.04(2) to add parties and rectify an improperly filed amended statement of claim.

The court allowed the addition of some proposed defendants, including individuals connected to the directing minds of the business and certain corporate entities, finding that the 'litigating finger' pointed towards them.

However, the court dismissed the request to add a second group of 'New Franchisees,' determining that the pleading did not disclose a tenable cause of action against them and that their addition would lead to unnecessary expense and delay.

Costs were awarded to both partially successful parties.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee executed by the defendants in connection with a share purchase agreement (SPA) for solar energy companies.

The defendants' holding company, Lavender Glen, failed to make required payments, and despite subsequent amending agreements and acknowledgments of debt, the outstanding amount remained unpaid.

The defendants alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations as a defense.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants' misrepresentation claims were deemed vague, self-serving, and contradicted by the SPA's entire agreement clause and a later acknowledgment of debt.

Arguments of unconscionability and unpleaded fraudulent misrepresentation were also rejected.

The defendant brought a motion seeking orders that two Toronto actions arising from a motor vehicle accident be tried together, transferred to Brampton, and then tried together with an existing Brampton action arising from the same accident.

While the plaintiffs did not oppose the request that the Toronto actions be tried together, they opposed transferring the actions to Brampton and consolidating them with the Brampton proceeding.

The court held that the Toronto actions were newly commenced and could not realistically be ready for the scheduled January 2014 trial of the Brampton action.

Justice Snowie had already ordered that the Brampton action proceed alone, having considered prejudice to the plaintiff in that action.

The court found no independent basis for transferring the Toronto actions to Brampton under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.