Joseph Stonehouse

The bankrupt, a former real estate developer, sought an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the Trustee, the Canada Revenue Agency, and several creditors, who argued that the bankrupt's assets were less than 50 cents on the dollar for reasons he could be held responsible for, and that he failed to perform his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in an asset protection strategy, incurred significant personal liabilities without the means to pay them, and failed to disclose his true post-bankruptcy lifestyle and use of a corporate credit card.

The court declined to refuse the discharge entirely but imposed a substantial conditional order requiring the bankrupt to pay $960,000 and fulfill various outstanding duties.

The applicant sought a declaration for payment of over $4 million in "Take-or-Pay Fees" and unpaid invoices from a contract manufacturing agreement, alleging the respondent failed to meet minimum order volumes.

The respondent argued the matter was unsuitable for an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) due to material facts in dispute, the enforceability of a potential penalty clause, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court agreed with the respondent, converting the application into an action for trial, finding that the dispute involved complex factual issues, including potential contract modification, estoppel, and frustration, which required discoveries and a fulsome record.

The moving parties (defendants/appellants) sought to set aside parts of a motion judge's order that lifted an automatic stay of a fraud judgment and ordered payment into court.

The basis for their request was the motion judge's failure to consider a Croatian share transfer document.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the Croatian document lacked evidentiary weight as it was not accompanied by a certified English translation as required by s. 125(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, was not produced at trial, and was attached to an affidavit from an unreliable witness containing hearsay.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the respondents' largely unsuccessful motion to stay or dismiss the applicant's proceeding.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, while the respondents sought costs thrown away due to the applicant's improper procedural choice (application instead of action) and conduct.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $50,000, but also awarded the respondents $25,000 "on account" for costs thrown away, considering the applicant's procedural misstep, improper contact with represented parties, and questionable urgency claims.

The net result was an order for the respondents to pay the applicant $25,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The respondents brought a motion to stay or dismiss the application as an abuse of process, alleging the applicant failed to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with a co-respondent, failed to disclose surveillance evidence, and improperly commenced the proceeding as an application.

The court found that the applicant had made immediate and proper disclosure of the settlement agreement to both the non-settling parties and the court, and that the handling of surveillance evidence did not constitute an abuse of process.

The motion to stay was dismissed, but the court ordered the application converted into an action.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a partially successful motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiffs' claims.

The defendants sought to dismiss the entire action or strike parts of the Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim.

The court previously struck the claims of three subsidiary plaintiffs entirely and struck a specific claim of the main plaintiff with leave to amend, while dismissing the defendants' primary request to dismiss the entire action.

The court found the outcome split and, applying principles of costs, awarded the defendants 50% of their partial indemnity costs, fixed at $14,300, to reflect their partial success in narrowing the issues and removing parties.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action or strike the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(1)(a) and (b).

The motion sought to dismiss claims advanced by "Additional TyCorra Plaintiffs" due to lack of privity and to strike claims related to a TFI lease due to a drafting error.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' preliminary objections regarding delay and fresh step.

The court granted the motion to strike the claims of TyCorra Group Inc., TyCorra Leasing Inc., and TyCorra Fleet Solutions Inc. without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action due to lack of privity.

The claim of TyCorra Investments Inc. related to the TFI lease was struck with leave to amend to correct a drafting error.

The balance of the defendants' motion, which sought to strike the main contractual claims based on an interpretation of Right of First Refusal Agreements in the context of related contracts, was dismissed, as the court found a "germ or scintilla" of a cause of action.