Jeremy Opolsky

The applicant sought the appointment of a full receiver over the properties and assets of the respondent power generation companies following significant monetary and operational defaults under loan agreements.

The respondents opposed a full receivership, arguing they had secured alternative financing, but consented to continuing an interim receivership.

The court found the proposed financing commitment highly conditional and uncertain, and noted the respondents' lack of interim funding, disarray in management, and risk to employees and operations.

Concluding it was just and convenient to protect the applicant's security, the court granted the application and appointed a full receiver.

The plaintiffs brought a consent motion in writing to approve the dismissal of a putative class proceeding against Facebook and Google on a without costs basis.

The action alleged that Facebook scraped call and text logs from users of the Messenger app on Android devices.

Following the denial of certification in a parallel British Columbia action, the representative plaintiffs no longer wished to proceed due to the risk of adverse costs.

The court approved the dismissal, finding it was not brought for an improper purpose, no private benefit was received to the detriment of class members, and notice to the class was unnecessary.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving party defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiffs argued that the court should apply the appropriateness exception under s. 137.1(7) to award partial indemnity costs instead of the presumptive full indemnity costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding no basis to depart from the full indemnity presumption, and awarded the defendants their costs on a full indemnity basis (and substantial indemnity for one defendant on a pro bono retainer), totaling over $383,000.

The plaintiffs, a newspaper publisher and his company, brought an action for defamation, misfeasance in public office, inducing breach of contract, and wrongful interference with economic relations against several city councillors, school board trustees, and a media company.

The action arose from statements made by the defendants criticizing articles published by the plaintiffs as homophobic and transphobic, and advocating for the cessation of city advertising in the plaintiffs' newspaper.

The defendants brought motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The court granted the motions, finding that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest.

While the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the other claims had merit, and failed to show that the defendants had no valid defences, including fair comment, qualified privilege, and responsible communication.

Furthermore, the court found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The appellants, Fram and Kerbel, appealed a trial judgment that declared a 2005 land sale agreement between Kerbel and Romandale at an end.

The trial judge had found that Kerbel repudiated the agreement by entering into a settlement agreement with Fram that delayed the closing of the land sale until after secondary plan approval.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that Romandale was estopped by convention from asserting that the settlement agreement breached the 2005 agreement, as all parties had shared the assumption that the sale could only close after secondary plan approval.

The Court also held that the 2005 agreement was not frustrated or void for mistake, Kerbel's claim was not limitation-barred, and Kerbel was entitled to specific performance because the lands were unique.

The Monitor of Bondfield Construction Company Limited and the Trustee in Bankruptcy of Forma-Con Construction brought applications under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to recover tens of millions of dollars transferred out of the debtor companies through a false invoicing scheme and an alleged fund cycling scheme.

The court found that the payments made under the false invoicing scheme were transfers at undervalue made with the intent to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors, and held the participating respondents jointly and severally liable.

The court declined to apply the strict corporate attribution doctrine from Canadian Dredge, instead imputing the directing mind's fraudulent intent to the corporate debtors to fulfill the remedial purpose of s. 96.

The Monitor's claim regarding the fund cycling scheme was dismissed for lack of evidence that the transfers lacked consideration.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, alleging she was terminated in part due to her romantic relationship with the defendant's CEO and issues relating to her children's cell phones.

She pleaded discrimination based on marital and family status under the Human Rights Code.

The defendant moved to strike these pleadings for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court declined to strike the marital status claim, finding that a serious romantic relationship might fall within the evolving definition of marital status.

However, the court struck the family status claim because the plaintiff did not plead discrimination based on a parent-child relationship.

In the context of a CCAA proceeding, Port of Algoma Inc. (Portco) brought a motion seeking an order compelling the debtor, Essar Steel Algoma Inc., to make post-filing payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement and for an administrative charge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the Monitor was directed to commence an oppression proceeding regarding the underlying related party transactions.

The court also rejected Portco's renewed arguments under section 11.01(a) of the CCAA, noting they had been decided in a prior motion, and declined to lift the stay of proceedings, emphasizing that doing so would be contrary to the interests of the stakeholders and the restructuring process.

Various parties brought motions seeking reconsideration or clarification of a prior joint allocation decision determining the distribution of $7.3 billion in escrow among debtor estates in multinational insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties argued that aspects of the allocation methodology—including treatment of bond guarantee claims, certain asset sale proceeds, intercompany claims, tax claims, and settled claims—required amendment or clarification.

The court reiterated that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and rejected most requests because the issues either had been addressed at trial or could have been raised earlier.

Limited clarification was granted regarding the treatment of bondholder claims against guarantors and recognition of certain court‑approved settled pre‑filing claims that had been paid.

Other requested clarifications or amendments were denied.