J. Russo

The Licensed Insolvency Trustee sought approval of its Statement of Receipts and Disbursements and its discharge in a summary administration bankruptcy.

A former creditor, who had previously demanded the disallowance of her own proof of claim, opposed the discharge on numerous grounds, repeating allegations previously dismissed by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and other courts.

The court found the opposing party lacked standing as an 'interested person' and that her objections were unfounded and vexatious.

The court approved the trustee's accounts, granted the discharge, and ordered the opposing party to pay $19,970.09 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to her reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiff, a former President of the defendant company, brought an action for wrongful dismissal and oppression, claiming a 15% equity interest.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to produce a further and better affidavit of documents, specifically seeking financial and operational records.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for divided disclosure, arguing that the threshold issue of oppression should be determined before the consequential issue of valuation, and that producing the documents to the plaintiff (now working for a competitor) would cause serious prejudice.

The Master dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, finding that the issues were not clearly severable and that the defendants failed to demonstrate serious prejudice.

The Master ordered the production of most of the disputed documents, subject to a confidentiality order.

The defendants, who were also plaintiffs by counterclaim, sought a confidentiality order requiring certain disclosed materials to be designated “for counsel eyes only.” They argued the information concerned confidential technical, marketing, customer, and financial data of a developing technology company and that disclosure could cause irreparable competitive harm.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that a discovery plan without confidentiality restrictions had already been executed and that the evidence of harm was speculative.

The court held that the existence of parallel Federal Court litigation with even stricter confidentiality protections justified comparable safeguards in the Superior Court proceeding.

The motion was granted and a confidentiality order issued.

The tenant applied for declarations that the landlord’s termination of a commercial lease was unlawful and that the tenant was entitled to re-enter the premises.

After the fixed lease term expired, the tenant remained in possession due to delays relocating a medical clinic caused by regulatory inspections.

The landlord changed the locks and removed the tenant’s property, asserting that the lease had expired and vacant possession was required for a new tenant.

The court held that the lease’s overholding clause created a month-to-month tenancy when the tenant remained in possession after expiry.

Because the landlord had not provided proper notice to terminate the month-to-month tenancy and did not comply with the lease’s notice provisions, the landlord breached the lease by re-entering and removing the tenant’s property.