Kimmel

The Court-appointed Receiver brought a motion for an Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) to sell real property, and for a Distribution and Discharge Order.

The debtor opposed the sale, arguing the purchase price was improvident and presenting a higher late offer.

The court applied the Soundair test and found the Receiver conducted a fair, court-approved sale process, making sufficient efforts to obtain the best price.

The court granted the AVO, approved the Receiver's activities and fees, and granted a temporary sealing order over confidential property value information.

The defendants, Dentons Canada LLP and Philip Rimer, brought a third-party claim against various individuals and entities, including other lawyers and advisors, seeking contribution and indemnity in a professional negligence action.

The third parties brought Rule 21 motions to strike the third-party claim, arguing that they acted as agents for the plaintiff and therefore any negligence on their part would be attributable to the plaintiff, precluding a third-party claim.

The court struck the claims against one director (Wang) and the escrow agent, finding them doomed to fail based on agency and contractual principles.

However, the court allowed the claims against the other third-party advisors and lawyers to proceed, finding that they fell into a category of non-agency advisory roles where the plaintiff might not be held contributorily responsible for their actions.

Leave to amend was granted to particularize the claims against certain third parties.

The applicants, Xplore Inc. and a wholly-owned subsidiary, sought a final order approving a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA).

The arrangement aimed to implement a comprehensive recapitalization transaction to significantly deleverage the company's secured debt and secure new financing.

A key component of the plan was a reverse vesting order (RVO) to separate uneconomic satellite business obligations from the ongoing operations.

The court found that the arrangement met all statutory requirements, was proposed in good faith, and was fair and reasonable to all stakeholders, including the initially opposing satellite providers who reached a commercial resolution.

The court also confirmed its jurisdiction under s. 192(4) of the CBCA to grant an RVO and approved the inclusion of third-party releases.

The moving party, Unity Health, sought summary judgment to dismiss four actions brought by subcontractor plaintiffs, arguing that the plaintiffs' settlement with the surety (Zurich) constituted an inconsistent election that precluded their alternative claims against Unity Health.

Unity Health also sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims and, alternatively, to stay two of the actions for failure to immediately disclose the settlement.

The court dismissed the motions, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the doctrine of inconsistent election and the unjust enrichment claims.

The court also held that the settlement was disclosed in a timely manner once it was finalized, so a stay was not warranted.

The applicants, Xplore Inc. and 16029167 Canada Inc., sought a preliminary interim order under s. 192(4) of the CBCA to facilitate a comprehensive recapitalization transaction.

The applicants requested a stay of proceedings to prevent unsecured creditors, particularly satellite providers, from taking unilateral actions that could disrupt services to rural customers while definitive agreements were finalized.

The court granted the preliminary interim order, finding that the proposed transaction constituted an arrangement, the solvency requirement was met, and the stay was necessary to provide stability during negotiations.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the court-appointed Monitor sought a Mareva injunction against a former executive, his company, and his spouse.

The Monitor alleged that the executive had misappropriated millions of dollars from the insolvent companies for personal use, including purchasing a yacht, private jet fractional interests, and real estate, while failing to remit significant taxes.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against the executive and his company, and inferred a real risk of asset dissipation given their ties to St. Lucia.

An uncapped Mareva injunction was granted against them.

However, the court found insufficient evidence of actual knowledge to establish a strong prima facie case of knowing assistance or receipt against the spouse, and instead ordered her to provide a statement of worldwide assets.

The Ontario Securities Commission applied to appoint a receiver over the property of the respondents, who allegedly engaged in a fraudulent foreign exchange trading scheme.

The respondents had collected over USD $310 million in registration fees from customers who believed they were trading in a live market, when in fact they were trading in a simulated environment controlled by the respondents.

The court found a prima facie case of fraud and determined that appointing a receiver was appropriate for the due administration of Ontario securities law to manage and preserve approximately USD $90 million in frozen assets.

The tenant, a duty-free store operator at the Peace Bridge, brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that it was not required to pay base rent during the 18-month period its store was closed due to COVID-19 border restrictions.

The tenant argued the landlord breached a lease provision requiring consultation on regulatory changes and breached its duty of good faith by making unreasonable demands.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the landlord engaged in good faith negotiations and offered reasonable accommodations.

The court held it cannot rewrite the lease or impose a new rent structure where the parties failed to reach an agreement, as the lease lacked objective benchmarks for such an adjustment.

The plaintiff in a civil rescission action sought an order compelling the defendants to produce the Crown disclosure brief they received in related criminal proceedings concerning the same alleged fraud in a hospital procurement process.

The Attorney General opposed immediate production, arguing it could taint witnesses before they testified in the criminal trial.

The court balanced the interests under the Wagg framework and adjourned the motion sine die, accepting the Attorney General's undertaking to conduct a Wagg review and produce the documents within eight weeks after a verdict in the criminal proceedings.

The applicant, Bluecore Capital Inc., brought a bankruptcy application against the respondent, Sergio Grillone, a former lawyer, based on his failure to repay a litigation funding loan.

The respondent brought a motion for a mis-trial, alleging evidence tampering and perjury by the applicant's counsel and witness regarding the version of the loan agreement entered into evidence.

The court dismissed the mis-trial motion, finding the evidentiary irregularities were inadvertent and did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

The court granted the bankruptcy application, finding the applicant proved a debt exceeding $1,000 and an act of bankruptcy.

The court held that special circumstances existed to allow a single creditor application due to the respondent's litigious conduct and the multiplicity of claims against him, making a bankruptcy proceeding the most efficient way to manage his estate.

The applicants sought judgment against the respondents, who were previously found in civil contempt for failing to comply with court orders.

The respondents had misappropriated trust funds intended for a cannabis retail business, using them for personal expenses and gambling.

The court found the respondents liable for breach of fiduciary duty, oppression, and fraud (against Pacheco only).

Judgment was granted in favour of the applicants, including an award of $25,000 in punitive damages against Pacheco and full indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs, limited partners in three real estate development limited partnerships, sought declarations validating their special resolutions to remove and replace the original general partners.

The dispute arose after the original general partners issued capital calls to pay management fees to an affiliated company, which the plaintiffs argued were unauthorized.

The court found the capital calls were invalid as the management agreements were not approved by special resolution and the general partners failed to seek external financing first.

The court upheld the plaintiffs' special resolutions removing the original general partners due to multiple unremedied defaults, including failure to provide access to financial records, co-mingling of funds, and unauthorized related-party transactions.

The defendants' counterclaims were dismissed.

The applicants sought an order to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a New York Court in a U.S. securities class action, compelling production of documents from the respondent, a non-party Ontario corporation.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the requests were overly broad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome.

The court applied the Friction Division guideposts and granted the application on a narrowed basis, restricting the temporal scope of the production and establishing a staged process to manage the costs and burden of electronic document review.

The respondents were previously found in civil contempt for failing to comply with multiple court orders requiring disclosure, accounting, and tracing of assets.

At the sentencing hearing, the court found that the respondents had still not purged their contempt.

The court ordered a 30-day custodial sentence for one respondent, stayed for approximately one month to provide a final opportunity to comply, and ordered the respondents to pay $30,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion for an approval and vesting order (AVO) to sell a real estate development property to a third-party purchaser.

A second mortgagee and joint venture participant brought a cross-motion to redeem the property or, alternatively, for approval of its credit bid.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that allowing a redemption after a court-approved sale process had concluded would undermine the integrity of the process.

The court granted the receiver's motion, holding that the proposed sale satisfied the Soundair principles, as the receiver acted providently, considered all stakeholders' interests, and conducted a fair and commercially efficacious process.

The applicants, holding approximately nine percent of the units of First Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, requisitioned a special meeting to replace four trustees.

The board scheduled the meeting for May 16, 2023, five months after the requisition.

The applicants sought an order compelling the meeting to be held earlier.

The court found that the board's decision to delay the meeting was not deserving of deference, as the justifications provided—cost savings, allowing a business plan to unfold, and providing more time for unitholder consideration—were not compelling and prejudiced the requisitioning unitholders.

The application was granted, and the trust was ordered to hold the meeting as soon as practicable after March 1, 2023.

The moving parties sought to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by three brothers to separate their financial interests in a family excavation and construction business.

One brother opposed the motion, arguing the agreement was merely an 'agreement to agree' and lacked essential terms.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement on all essential terms, evidenced by the clear language of the agreement, their subsequent conduct, and partial performance.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to refuse enforcement, noting the strong public policy favouring settlements and the lack of any unconscionability or prejudice.

The motion was granted, and the settlement was ordered to be implemented with the assistance of an associate judge if necessary.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a single-purpose real estate holding company, brought a third oppression application against the majority shareholders, seeking to force the sale of the company's property and its winding-up.

He alleged that the respondents oppressively withheld distributions and paid themselves unjustified salaries and special fees.

The respondents brought a cross-application to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed the oppression application, finding that the respondents' actions were justified and did not breach the applicant's reasonable expectations.

The court also dismissed the vexatious litigant cross-application but ordered that the applicant must seek leave before commencing any further proceedings against the company or its shareholders.

The parties have been engaged in ongoing litigation regarding a commercial lease.

The tenant and its principal brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to introduce fresh evidence, alleging the landlord fraudulently omitted pre-lease emails that would have altered prior court decisions regarding rent arrears and construction allowances.

The landlord brought a motion to terminate the lease for non-payment of rent.

The court dismissed the tenant's motion, finding the proposed fresh evidence inadmissible as it constituted pre-contractual negotiations that did not clearly contradict the landlord's evidence or the final lease terms.

The court granted the landlord's motion to terminate the lease due to the tenant's ongoing default, but stayed the termination pending a companion oppression application, conditional on the payment of ongoing rent into trust.

The applicants sought coverage under a trade credit insurance policy issued by Export Development Canada (EDC).

EDC denied coverage due to underlying disputes regarding the receivables owed by the UD Group to Rutmet.

Rutmet and the UD Group brought motions to intervene in the application and consolidate it with their own actions.

The applicants brought a cross-motion to declare Rutmet and the UD Group vexatious litigants.

The court, on its own initiative, stayed the application pending the determination of the substantive disputes in ongoing foreign proceedings in Singapore and Dubai, finding that those jurisdictions had already been determined to be the appropriate forums.

Consequently, the motions to intervene and consolidate, as well as the cross-motion, were dismissed.