J. Larry

Investors who were customers of a bank alleged negligence after advancing funds to entities engaged in a cheque‑kiting scheme whose accounts had been frozen by the bank.

They claimed the bank knew of the fraudulent activity and failed to disclose material information during communications with them, while applying the advanced funds to reduce the fraudster’s indebtedness to the bank.

The bank moved under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the negligence claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Applying the Anns/Cooper framework and the test on motions to strike, the court held it was not plain and obvious that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

Given the pleaded bank‑customer relationship and alleged communications between the bank and its customers, the negligence claim was at least analogous to recognized categories of proximity.

The applicants, who invested approximately $15 million in the respondent companies, sought the appointment of a receiver following defaults on loans and breaches of a forbearance agreement.

The respondents had agreed to the appointment of a monitor and provided consents to a receivership held in escrow, but subsequently failed to provide the monitor with unfettered access to financial records, delayed adding the monitor as a bank signatory, and made preferential payments to the principal's family members.

The court found that the respondents materially breached the forbearance agreement and side letter, making it just and convenient under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act to appoint a receiver over all three respondent companies.

Multiple condominium corporations brought motions under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the automatic stay of proceedings following the bankruptcy of a property manager and his company.

The underlying actions alleged fraudulent mortgage loans and fraudulent overcharging in condominium management contracts.

The court held that the claims involved issues of fraud, complex contingent debts, and disputes requiring full adjudication with multiple parties, making the bankruptcy claims process inadequate.

The court lifted the statutory stays to allow four existing civil actions to continue and permitted a lender to commence two related actions, ordering that all six proceedings be case-managed together on the Commercial List.

The court also imposed terms limiting costs recovery against the bankrupt estates prior to discharge.