Kevin Raynald Joseph Caron

The Court-Appointed Receiver of Ashcroft Homes – Capital Hall Inc. sought approval of a settlement agreement with Northbridge Financial Corporation concerning an action for approximately $60 million in damages related to a fire that interrupted construction of a 353-unit residential condominium building in Ottawa.

The Receiver also sought a sealing order to protect the confidential terms of the settlement.

The court approved the settlement as reasonable and granted the sealing order, finding that the public interest in maximizing recovery for stakeholders and promoting settlement outweighed the principle of court openness under the three-part test established in Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

The applicant brought a motion seeking consolidation of two oppression remedy applications (2019 and 2023), an order compelling respondents to comply with court orders for audited financial statements, reimbursement of his deposit, a timetable for remaining steps, and written submissions on oppression and receiver appointment.

The court ordered the applications be heard together rather than consolidated, to preserve the respondents' limitation period defences.

The court compelled the respondents to provide answers to the applicant's queries regarding anomalies in the draft financial statements within 30 days and ordered completion of audited financial statements within specified timeframes.

The applicant was ordered to confirm his shareholder loan account within 30 days to allow completion of the audit.

The decision concerns an application by Sheetza McGarry to appoint an interim Estate Trustee and obtain directions regarding the validity of a purported 2016 will and irrevocable life insurance beneficiary designations in the estate of Brian William McGarry.

The court reviews the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will and insurance changes, the renunciation of the named executors, and the positions of interested parties and non-parties.

The court refuses to dismiss the application, finds the applicant has met the evidentiary threshold to challenge the will, and appoints neutral third parties as Estate Trustees During Litigation (ETDLs).

Directions are given for the administration of the estate and the production of legal files.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of anti-SLAPP motions by the three defendants.

The court addresses the scale and quantum of costs, the issue of duplication between legal teams, and the entitlement of a self-represented litigant to costs.

The court awards full indemnity costs to the defendants, finding the requests fair and reasonable, and declines to award compensation to the self-represented defendant for his own time.

The court considered the appropriate costs order following an application in which the applicant, Kristine McGinn, obtained injunctive relief against the respondents, including Stephen Bleeker and Assurance Home Care.

The court determined that costs should be payable forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the applicant’s request for substantial indemnity costs and her request that costs be awarded against Mr. Bleeker personally.

The court fixed costs at $47,769.39, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid within 30 days.

The applicant, Kristine McGinn, sought an interim injunction to restore her status as an employee, officer, and director of Assurance Home Care Inc., and to refer her claims against the respondents to arbitration.

The respondent, Stephen Bleeker, had unilaterally terminated McGinn's employment and sought to remove her from the board, revoking her access to company resources.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in aid of arbitration and determined the injunction sought was prohibitive.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding Bleeker's authority to terminate McGinn unilaterally, and that McGinn would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, as it would diminish the prospect of a shotgun/buy-sell order remedy.

The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo prior to the alleged breach.

This appeal concerned the assessment of damages in a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The trial judge awarded the respondent (purchaser) damages for the increase in property value and 90% of all development expenses incurred since 2010.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, affirming the award for increased property value and wasted expenses, but erred by including expenses incurred under a prior joint venture agreement that had been released.

The Court held that only expenses incurred after the 2013 Agreement of Purchase and Sale were recoverable.

The calculation of rental costs as development expenses was upheld, but the amount was to be limited to the period of the 2013 APS.

The 10% discount applied by the trial judge was upheld.

The applicant, a former director and minority shareholder, brought a motion seeking an order for the respondent corporation BCE Realty Ltd. to produce an audited financial statement for 2022, alleging financial impropriety and oppression.

The court found the applicant had standing as a former director under the Ontario Business Corporations Act's oppression remedy provisions, despite not being a direct shareholder.

The court granted the order for the audited financial statement but required the applicant to pay the cost in advance, with the right to seek reimbursement at the end of the litigation.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of an urgent injunction application.

The court considered three hearings: the initial injunction application, a hearing regarding the respondent's breach of undertaking, and a hearing requested by the respondent to vary an interim order.

The injunction was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to provide an undertaking as to damages.

The court awarded costs to the respondent for the initial injunction hearing and for responding to the applicant's post-decision attempt to provide the undertaking, but denied costs for the hearings related to the undertaking breach and the failed attempt to vary the interim order, finding them unnecessary.

The court also assessed the reasonableness of the respondent's claimed legal hours and hourly rates.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard two appeals concerning a priority dispute over accelerated interest in closed mortgages and a costs order in a receivership.

The primary issue was whether the first mortgagee, First National Financial GP Corporation (FN), was entitled to future, unearned, accelerated interest upon the early discharge of its closed mortgages due to the mortgagors' default and court-ordered sale.

The court found that the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a full contractual analysis of the mortgage provisions and by relying on a standalone common law entitlement to accelerated interest.

The Court of Appeal held that the mortgage terms explicitly provided for FN's entitlements upon default, which did not include accelerated interest.

The appeal regarding accelerated interest was allowed.

The appeal concerning the receiver's costs was dismissed, as the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised.

The Appellants sought an order to vacate Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs) and a writ of seizure and sale registered against their properties, pending the determination of their appeals from a judgment and a CPL order.

They proposed paying the judgment amount into court as security to facilitate the sale of the properties to a third party.

The Respondent opposed, arguing that prior agreements required the full sale proceeds to be paid into court and that the Appellants had failed to disclose the sale agreement earlier.

The court found that the prior agreements contemplated a sale before the final determination of damages and that the Appellants' liability was now fixed by the judgment.

The motion was granted, allowing the CPLs and writ to be vacated upon the Appellants paying $1,750,000 into court as reasonable security, balancing the parties' interests.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion and cross-motion where the court stayed assessment orders pending a negligence action.

The applicant argued the granted relief was not sought, but the court clarified that a stay was requested by the respondent and affirmed its inherent power to stay proceedings under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court determined that costs for the interlocutory motions should be "in the cause" and reserved for the trial judge, citing the intertwined nature of the issues with the negligence action and the many possible outcomes.

The Applicant law firm sought assessment of outstanding accounts.

The Respondent client brought a cross-motion to stay the assessment proceedings pending the outcome of a negligence action against the law firm.

The court granted the stay, finding that the negligence action raised serious allegations, involved significantly higher damages, and its outcome would likely determine the assessment, thus avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings.