J. Rosekat

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action for negligent repair and misrepresentation regarding an aircraft, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Alberta was the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiffs also moved to add a related federal corporation operating in Ontario as a defendant, which was granted on consent.

Applying the Van Breda test, the court found that Ontario had jurisdiction based on the defendants carrying on business in Ontario, the tort being committed in Ontario, and contracts being made in Ontario.

The court further held that the defendants failed to establish that Alberta was a clearly more appropriate forum, as most witnesses and the aircraft were located in Ontario.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of an auction sale process for a high-value unfinished residential property after several years of unsuccessful marketing through traditional listings.

A second mortgagee opposed the proposed reserve price, arguing it was too low and risked insufficient proceeds to reduce the debt under the second mortgage.

The court reviewed confidential appraisal evidence and the property’s extended failed marketing history.

It concluded that the receiver’s valuation and proposed reserve price were more realistic than the objecting mortgagee’s optimistic assumptions.

The court approved the auction process, the receiver’s activities and fees, and granted a sealing order to protect commercially sensitive valuation and auction information.

The applicants moved for an order regarding post-closing issues following a court-approved sale of properties.

The respondents sought a payout on two mortgages that included a prepayment penalty for future interest loss.

The applicants argued the mortgages were self-dealing and should not include a prepayment penalty, as the original CMHC mortgages did not.

The court found that the mortgages did not contain a prepayment privilege and that the respondents were entitled to compensation for the loss resulting from the early vesting off title of the mortgages.

The court ruled in favour of the respondents.

The applicants moved for an order regarding post-closing issues following a court-approved sale of properties.

The respondents sought payout on two mortgages, including compensation for future interest loss, as the mortgages were vested off title prior to maturity.

The applicants objected, arguing the mortgages were self-dealing and should not include an unbargained pre-payment penalty.

The court found that the mortgages did not contain a pre-payment privilege and that the respondents did not breach any fiduciary duty in the refinancing.

The court ruled in favour of the respondents, ordering that they be compensated for future interest loss.