Karen Perron

The moving party creditor sought to lift the stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to continue two civil actions against the bankrupt.

The creditor alleged the bankrupt owed fiduciary obligations, that the loaned funds were subject to a constructive trust, and that the bankrupt made fraudulent misrepresentations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the civil actions had little prospect of success as the debt was a standard unsecured loan governed by a promissory note.

The court also found that lifting the stay would prejudice other unsecured creditors and delay the administration of the estate.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the production of documents over which the defendants claimed common interest privilege, a joint defence tolling agreement, and answers to refusals.

The court found that the defendants failed to establish the underlying solicitor-client privilege necessary for common interest privilege, as the communications were shared with third parties and there was no evidence they entailed seeking or providing legal advice.

The court also ordered the production of the joint defence tolling agreement, finding it altered the litigation landscape.

The plaintiff's motion was granted.

A creditor opposed the bankrupt's discharge and brought a motion seeking a declaration under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act that two claims were not released by the bankruptcy, alleging misappropriation of funds while the bankrupt acted as a fiduciary.

The court found that the first claim, based on a Small Claims Court judgment, survived bankruptcy as the judgment established the bankrupt misappropriated funds while acting as a fiduciary.

The court lifted the stay of proceedings for this debt.

However, the creditor failed to meet the burden of proof for the second, unliquidated claim.

The court refused an absolute discharge due to established facts under s. 173 and suspended the discharge for one year.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The action, commenced in 2018 under simplified procedure rules, had not progressed past the exchange of productions after nearly eight years.

The court applied the four-factor test from Piedrahita v. Costin, finding that while the motion was brought promptly and the defendant suffered no actual prejudice from the delay, the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for abandoning litigation steps for 17 months in favour of settlement discussions, and did not establish inadvertence.

The court held that the values of timeliness and efficiency outweighed the absence of prejudice, and dismissed the motion.

The bankrupt sought a discharge from bankruptcy, which was opposed by the Trustee and a major creditor.

The opposing parties established several facts under section 173 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, including that the bankrupt's assets were not equal to 50 cents on the dollar of her unsecured debts, she had put creditors to unnecessary expense by advancing frivolous defences, she committed offences regarding HST claims, and she failed to maintain or disclose corporate records.

The court granted a conditional discharge, suspended for 12 months, requiring the bankrupt to cooperate fully, release rights in ongoing litigation, and pay $75,000 to the estate.

In this slip and fall action, one defendant sought leave at a case conference to bring a partial summary judgment motion on duty of care and limitation issues.

The plaintiff opposed the request on the basis that the action would continue against other defendants, the moving defendant would still be a trial witness, and credibility and expert issues remained live.

The court held the proposed motion was not appropriate because it would delay trial scheduling, was unlikely to be materially more cost-effective than trial, and risked inconsistent findings on issues intertwined with the main action.

The request to proceed by summary judgment was therefore refused.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property after a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff had paid a $250,000 deposit to a corporation that was not yet the registered owner, relying on representations from an intermediary.

When the transaction failed, the deposit was not returned, and the plaintiff sought a CPL claiming a constructive trust.

The court found the plaintiff established a reasonable interest in the property but dismissed the motion because equitable factors, including the plaintiff being a shell corporation and damages being an adequate remedy, weighed against issuing the CPL.

The plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action in Ontario.

The defendant brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing that British Columbia was the more appropriate forum.

The employment contract contained a non-exclusive forum selection clause in favour of Ontario.

The court held that the forum non conveniens test, rather than the strong cause test, applies to non-exclusive forum selection clauses.

After weighing the relevant factors, the court concluded that the defendant failed to establish that British Columbia was clearly a more appropriate forum.

The motion was dismissed.

The bankrupt applied for a discharge from bankruptcy, which was opposed by two creditors who had purchased a property from him prior to the bankruptcy.

The opposing creditors sought an audit of the bankrupt's transactions and the appointment of an inspector, but failed to file the required motion materials or take appropriate steps under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found the bankrupt to be credible, cooperative, and compliant with his obligations.

Given the presence of section 173 facts, the court granted the discharge subject to a 10-day suspension.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their claim to cap damages at $50,000 and transfer the action to the Small Claims Court.

The self-represented defendant opposed the motion and sought an adjournment, citing procedural fairness and her current residence in Africa.

The court denied the adjournment, noting the defendant had ample time to respond.

Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting the early stage of the proceedings, the court granted the transfer to facilitate a more cost-effective and expeditious resolution.

Case conference endorsement in a civil action that had been transferred from Ottawa to Toronto on consent.

The defendants sought to vacate the case conference following the transfer order, arguing the Ottawa court lacked authority to make further decisions.

The court declined to vacate, finding nothing in the transfer order or the Rules prevented it from finalizing pending issues to ensure an orderly transition.

The court directed the parties to proceed to examinations for discovery rather than pursue further production motions, reasoning that outstanding production issues could be canvassed under oath during examinations and a timetable was established on consent.

The defendants brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs' second reply pleading and to revise the litigation timetable.

The court found that paragraphs responding to unamended portions of the amended statement of defence were improper, relying on Van Huizen v Trisura, and that many allegations improperly pleaded evidence and legal argument contrary to Rule 25.06.

Paragraphs 5-7, 8-32, and 45-51 of the second reply were struck.

The court revised the timetable on consent, assumed case management, and barred further motions without leave.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the defendants.

This is a supplementary endorsement addressing the requirements for issuing a writ of possession under Rule 60.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court clarified that when a moving party seeks leave to issue a writ of possession on an ex parte basis after judgment has been issued"sufficient notice of the proceeding" requires that all occupants receive full particulars of the judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff's template Notice Demanding Possession was deficient because it failed to attach a copy of the judgment and was ambiguous regarding whether judgment had actually been obtained, leaving occupants uncertain about their obligation to vacate or right to seek relief.

A creditor sought relief in a consumer proposal proceeding, including lifting the stay of proceedings to allow a Landlord and Tenant Board application to proceed, admitting his claim in full under section 135 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and obtaining a ruling that the debtor's claim should not be released from discharge.

The creditor alleged unpaid rent and property damage.

The court dismissed the motion to admit the claim under section 135, finding the LTB was the proper forum to determine the landlord-tenant dispute.

The court granted the motion to lift the stay to allow the LTB proceedings to continue, finding the creditor would be materially prejudiced without such relief and that it was equitable to do so.

The court considered a motion by the plaintiff to set aside an administrative dismissal of a personal injury action for delay.

The court reviewed the relevant factors, including the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

The court found the explanation for delay satisfactory, attributed the delay to counsel rather than the plaintiff, and found no actual or presumed prejudice to the defendant.

The action was reinstated, but no costs were awarded to either party.

The defendant brought a motion for production of documents from the minor plaintiff’s mother, a non-party, relating to the income of the deceased and allegations of sexual abuse.

The court found the documents relevant and necessary for the assessment of damages in a Family Law Act claim and ordered their production, rejecting arguments of prematurity and privacy.

The court also awarded costs to the defendant, with a reduction for issues abandoned or narrowed during the motion.

The plaintiffs sought to consolidate a 2023 action with a related 2021 action involving overlapping parties and issues arising from an “Estate Freeze” transaction.

The court found that both actions shared common questions of fact and arose from the same series of transactions, and that consolidation (or hearing the actions together) would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, inconsistent findings, and unnecessary costs.

The court ordered the actions to be heard together or one after the other, subject to the trial judge’s directions, and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion for security for costs against Telecore, a corporate plaintiff, in a procurement action.

The court considered whether the AGC required leave to bring the motion, the sufficiency of Telecore’s assets, and whether Telecore was impecunious.

The court found Telecore to be impecunious but determined that the AGC’s delay in bringing the motion was not justified.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and no costs were awarded on the motion.

Cette décision porte sur une motion de Facinet-Bigus Bangoura visant à obtenir l'autorisation de modifier sa déclaration introductive d’instance contre l’Université Algoma.

La Cour examine la suffisance des causes d’action proposées, notamment en diffamation, discrimination, violation d’équité procédurale et rupture de contrat.

La juge Perron conclut que la déclaration amendée ne révèle aucune cause d’action fondée contre l’université et que l’action constitue un recours abusif visant à contester une décision académique déjà tranchée.

La motion est rejetée et des dépens sont accordés à la défenderesse.

This decision concerns a status hearing in a civil action for damages for sexual assault.

The plaintiff, A.B., was required to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay.

The court found that A.B. provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, primarily due to the parties' agreement to await the completion of related criminal proceedings and the production of Wagg documents before proceeding with discoveries.

The court also found that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action continued.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.