Jordan D. Wajs

Following the release of the Court's decision on the appeal, submissions were received regarding the apportionment of costs.

The Court fixed costs of the appeal payable to the Receiver, the respondent 100 Ontario Inc., and the respondent Issam A. Saad, each in the amount of $15,000.

The appellant entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with a court-appointed receiver to purchase real estate.

The receiver brought a motion for approval and vesting.

However, late-breaking offers emerged, including one 37% higher than the appellant's offer.

The motion judge declined to approve the sale and instead ordered a six-day extension of the bidding process.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge misapplied the principles from Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly exercised discretion in reopening the auction process given the magnitude of the late offer and the receiver's alternative recommendation.

The plaintiff, a pharmacy, sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reinstate its billing services agreement with the defendant, a pharmacy benefits manager, after the defendant terminated the agreement for cause following an audit.

The court found the injunction sought was mandatory, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

The court determined the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, as the defendant acted within its contractual rights and the plaintiff's potential damages were quantifiable.

The motion was dismissed.