Jonathan H. Marler

The Receiver brought a motion for a contempt order against the respondent for failing to comply with a Receivership Order.

The court previously found the respondent in contempt.

At the sentencing hearing, the court considered the respondent's subsequent efforts to purge his contempt, including attending examinations and providing documents, as well as his apology.

Applying the Cavalon factors, the court declined to impose a custodial sentence but ordered the respondent to pay a $15,000 fine, declaring it a penalty under s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The plaintiffs (daughter and her partner) sued the defendant (father) for specific performance or damages for breach of an alleged oral agreement to sell the family home to them.

The plaintiffs moved into the home and completed extensive renovations, believing they had an agreement to purchase the home at a discounted price and an extension of the closing date.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral agreement to transfer the property because there was no meeting of the minds on the fundamental term of price, nor was there an agreement to extend the closing date.

The claim for specific performance was dismissed as the property was not objectively unique.

However, the court awarded the plaintiffs $178,860.70 in damages for unjust enrichment to compensate them for the cost of the renovations that increased the value of the defendant's home.

The bankrupt, a lawyer, made an assignment in bankruptcy but concealed it for years while an estate trustee sued him for breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation, eventually obtaining a default judgment.

The bankrupt later sought to rely on the automatic stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to avoid the judgment and subsequent costs orders.

The court dismissed the bankrupt's motion and granted the estate trustee's motion, finding that the claim was too remote and speculative to be a provable claim in bankruptcy.

Alternatively, the court held the debt would survive bankruptcy under s. 178 due to the bankrupt's misappropriation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and that it would be equitable to lift the stay under s. 69.4 given the bankrupt's egregious conduct.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation in relation to a residential property.

The plaintiffs alleged they advanced funds toward the construction of a home that was not completed on time, resulting in termination of the agreement of purchase and sale and a claim for return of funds and an interest in the land.

The court considered the leave test under rule 62.02(4)(b) and assumed, without deciding, that there might be reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying order.

However, the court held that the proposed appeal did not raise an issue of sufficient importance beyond the parties to justify appellate intervention.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.