J. F. Lalonde

The applicant lender sought appointment of a court-appointed receiver over three parcels of vacant land owned by the guarantor to conduct a sale in satisfaction of a $10 million guarantee.

The respondent guarantor and first mortgagee resisted the receivership.

The court upheld the validity of the applicant's second mortgages despite the absence of the first mortgagee's consent, finding the consent requirement was not a true condition precedent and the authorization and direction was unconditional.

However, the court declined to appoint a receiver, finding it unnecessary given the limited nature of the assets and the absence of any business to operate or preserve.

The guarantor was permitted 90 days to effect a private sale, with the applicant retaining the right to return for further relief.

A shareholder sought audited financial statements from a corporation spanning multiple years, arguing the corporation had failed to comply with its statutory obligations under the Business Corporations Act.

The respondents contended that the shareholder's demand was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's decision that the limitation period applies to compliance orders seeking enforcement of statutory obligations that correspond to shareholder rights.

The court rejected the argument that compliance orders are merely enforcement mechanisms without corresponding legal rights, holding instead that statutory obligations to provide audited financial statements create three-term legal relations where shareholders hold enforceable rights against the corporation.

The applicant, Charles Frederick Armstrong, challenged the constitutionality of the Township of Russell’s Sign By-Law, which restricted the display of municipal election signs.

The court found that the by-law violated Armstrong’s freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the violation was not justified under section 1.

The court also found that the Township was unjustly enriched by requiring Armstrong to pay $450 for the return of his signs, which had been removed under the unconstitutional by-law.

This decision concerns a failed real estate transaction and a motion for summary judgment under the simplified procedure.

The plaintiffs, Robert Wayne Colley and Mary Jean Colley, sought damages after the defendant, Zekiye Yousuf Hammoe, failed to close on the purchase of their property.

The court found that there were irreconcilable factual disputes regarding who requested an extension of the closing date and whether both parties signed an amendment.

The court also found the record insufficient to fairly assess damages, particularly regarding mitigation efforts.

As a result, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to a summary trial.