John D. Leslie

The plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor for the balance owing on commercial loans.

The defendant argued that the bank's receiver sold the mortgaged property improvidently, thereby raising a genuine issue for trial.

The court found that the receiver took reasonable precautions to obtain the true market value of the property, including obtaining an appraisal and listing it on the MLS for a reasonable period.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment to the bank.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of an eviction order for rent arrears.

The tenant sought an adjournment to consult with counsel.

The court denied the adjournment, finding it to be a further delaying tactic, as the tenant had paid no rent for seven months despite claiming to have the funds.

The court found the appeal disclosed no question of law and was filed solely to obtain a stay and delay the landlord.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted, the stay was lifted, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

Randy Oram, an unsecured creditor and shareholder, sought leave to appeal an order sanctioning a secured-creditor-led plan of arrangement under the CCAA and a related vesting order.

The plan involved selling the debtor companies' assets to a new company owned by an affiliate of a secured creditor, leaving no recovery for unsecured creditors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no serious and arguable grounds.

The court held that a plan exclusively benefiting secured creditors and not continuing the debtor as a going concern is not necessarily contrary to the CCAA, especially where there is no equity for unsecured creditors and no viable alternative plan.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the responding parties requested that a motion for leave to appeal be transferred from a single judge to a panel of the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 7(4) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The single judge dismissed the request, finding that s. 13 of the CCAA provides the moving party with the procedural option of bringing a leave motion to a single judge, and there was no reason to compel the moving party to adopt a different procedure.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a contract dispute over manufacturing work.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's findings of fact were inconsistent with his legal conclusions.

Specifically, the trial judge found that the respondent failed to complete work in a timely manner, which constituted a breach of contract, entitling the appellant to damages subject to mitigation.

The Court of Appeal varied the trial judgment to award the appellant damages for the cost of new tools and laser cut parts, while upholding the award to the respondent for compression costs.