Joseph Neil Blinick

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) brought a motion for approval of the sale of a commercial property co-owned by the insolvent estate and a third party.

The sale was opposed by certain beneficiaries who argued the sale price was improvident and the ETDL failed to follow court-ordered sales processes.

The co-owner initially opposed the sale but later consented.

The court applied the Soundair principles and approved the sale, finding that the property had been adequately marketed, the price was not improvident given the property's derelict state and ongoing operating losses, and the co-owner had waived any procedural irregularities.

The purchaser of a pre-construction condominium unit sought to rescind the agreement of purchase and sale after the developer added three stories to the building.

The parties proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator found in favour of the developer and determined his jurisdiction arose from the parties' consent under the Arbitration Act, 1991, not the Ontario New Homes Warranties Plan Act (ONHWPA).

The purchaser brought proceedings to the Divisional Court for judicial review and appeal.

The developer moved to quash the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that because the arbitrator determined his jurisdiction was under the Arbitration Act, 1991, that Act governed the appeal routes.

Since the purchaser had waived his appeal rights in the arbitration agreement, the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction.

The applicants jointly sought interim orders under s. 182(5) of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) in connection with a proposed plan of arrangement involving a quantum computing company (an OBCA corporation) and a special purpose acquisition company currently incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands.

A threshold issue arose as to whether a non-OBCA entity could avail itself of s. 182 of the OBCA.

The court found that the arrangement provision is to be interpreted broadly and flexibly, and that the timing of the SPAC's continuance to the OBCA was an immaterial quirk given that it would be an OBCA corporation before the final order was sought.

The court was satisfied that reasonable grounds existed to regard the proposed transaction as an arrangement and granted the interim orders authorizing the calling and holding of shareholder meetings.

The plaintiff in a proposed securities class action sought approval of a third-party funding agreement (After-the-Event insurance) under s. 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff in a parallel British Columbia class action sought to intervene to oppose the funding, arguing the B.C. action was self-funded and therefore cheaper.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, noting the B.C. action was languishing and there was no evidence it would actually be cheaper.

The court approved the funding agreement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, as it did not diminish the plaintiff's control over the litigation and the insurers were financially capable.

Costs of the intervention motion were awarded to the plaintiff against the proposed intervenor.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a townhouse.

The defendants failed to make required payments, and the plaintiffs purported to terminate the APS but did not communicate this clearly.

The plaintiffs later resold the property, and the defendants claimed breach and sought return of their deposits.

The court found that the APS was not properly terminated by the plaintiffs, and that by reselling the property, the plaintiffs themselves breached the APS.

The defendants were entitled to the return of their deposits with interest.

The applicant, Junhua Wang, sought the appointment of a receiver and manager over real property owned by the respondents, Hong Jing and Lihan Jing, under a matured and unpaid mortgage.

The respondents objected, arguing the mortgage was part of a broader financing arrangement involving third parties and ongoing litigation.

The court found the appointment of a receiver just and convenient, given the default, the risk to the applicant’s security, and the lack of evidence that the applicant was party to the broader arrangements.

The court also addressed evidentiary objections regarding the applicant’s affidavits and settled the process for finalizing the receivership order.

Cortland Credit Lending Corporation sought a declaration that Final Bell Holdings International Ltd.'s constructive trust claim against the Applicants (BZAM Ltd. et al.) was subordinate to Cortland's super priority security interest and corresponding DIP Lender's Charge in a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

Final Bell opposed, arguing for the need to prove its fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

The court granted Cortland's motion, finding Final Bell's constructive trust claim to be an impermissible collateral attack on the court's Amended and Restated Initial Order (ARIO) and an equity claim under the CCAA, which ranks behind all ordinary creditors.

The court emphasized the importance of respecting CCAA orders and the "building block" nature of restructuring proceedings.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all inclusive to the responding party.

BZAM Ltd. and Cortland Credit Lending Corporation brought a motion for security for costs against Final Bell Holdings International Ltd. within an ongoing CCAA proceeding.

Final Bell had initiated a claim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation against BZAM and seeking damages and equitable relief, including a constructive trust.

The court determined that Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, concerning security for costs, applies to claims within CCAA proceedings, and that Cortland, as a directly affected stakeholder, was entitled to seek such security.

Finding that Final Bell was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award, the court ordered Final Bell to post security for costs in favour of BZAM ($350,000) and Cortland ($147,000).

Additionally, Final Bell was ordered to pay the costs of the motion to BZAM ($20,000) and Cortland ($8,500).

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

In the receivership of the Stateview entities, Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion seeking declaratory relief on behalf of purchasers who had paid deposits for pre-construction homes.

Tarion argued that the deposits were subject to an express or constructive trust and sought a remedial constructive trust to elevate the purchasers' priority.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the purchasers had contractually subordinated their interests to secured lenders.

While an express trust existed for contracts with early termination provisions, the funds were not segregated.

The court declined to impose a remedial constructive trust, as doing so would improperly upset the priority scheme under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

This motion concerned the priority of new home purchasers' deposits in the bankruptcy of residential real estate developers (Stateview entities).

Tarion Warranty Corporation sought declaratory relief, arguing that the deposits were subject to express or constructive trusts due to unjust enrichment, which would elevate purchasers' claims.

The court dismissed Tarion's motion, finding that purchasers' agreements contained subordination clauses giving priority to secured lenders.

The court also determined that while express trusts existed for some purchasers with early termination provisions, these were not statutory deemed trusts.

Furthermore, there was no unjust enrichment for purchasers without express trusts, as the operation of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act constituted a juristic reason.

The court declined to impose a remedial constructive trust, emphasizing the high bar for such remedies in insolvency proceedings and the lack of a close causal connection between the deposits and the real property proceeds.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

AgriMarine Holdings Inc. and AgriMarine Industries Inc. appealed a decision dismissing their application for a declaration that Akvatech AS was in breach of contract and not the holder of a license to fish-rearing technology.

The parties had entered into a Letter Agreement dated November 20, 2012, whereby Akvatech would acquire ownership and licensing rights to the technology for certain territories in exchange for a $200,000 pre-payment.

The transaction was not completed by the target closing date, and the parties terminated the agreement by mutual conduct.

Akvatech demanded repayment of the pre-payment amount, issued a default notice when not repaid, and exercised its right under the agreement to obtain a perpetual, irrevocable, exclusive license to the technology in the Northern Europe Territory.

The application judge found neither party was in breach, the agreement had been terminated by mutual consent, and Akvatech was entitled to the license.

The appellants argued the application judge erred in permitting Akvatech to take advantage of its own breach, that there was no default by AgriMarine, and that the license was unenforceable due to unlimited duration and no royalty provisions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or reversible errors in contract interpretation.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application for a declaration regarding a licensing agreement, the successful respondent sought costs of $97,696.78 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued the costs were excessive and suggested $65,000.

The court rejected the applicants' argument that hours spent on moot issues should be excluded, noting the issues only became moot after the fact.

The court fixed costs at $80,000 all inclusive, finding it to be a fair and reasonable amount.

The Master awarded substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiff, Long Term Recovery Limited (LTR), in favour of the defendants, David Ted Bolden and Antoinette Arian Bolden, following the defendants' successful motion to set aside default judgment.

The court found LTR's opposition to the motion to be aggressive, overly technical, and unreasonable, especially given the low threshold for setting aside default judgment and the defendants' bona fide attempts to retain counsel.

The decision emphasized promoting access to justice and deterring unreasonable interlocutory positions through higher costs awards.