Dina Milivojevic

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that Gabriel Kit Chun Fung knew or was willfully blind to the fact that he was purchasing stolen goods or goods fraudulently obtained by Nadia Minetto, the accounting manager of Wescom Solutions Inc. Between early 2012 and July 2014, Fung purchased approximately $6.2 million in iPhones and iPads from Minetto, who had fraudulently obtained them using Wescom's corporate credit card.

The trial judge divided the transactions into three stages and found Fung was not willfully blind in Stage 1, was willfully blind in Stage 2, and had actual knowledge in Stage 3.

The trial judge awarded damages of $5,094,767.72 plus interest.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by applying an objective standard to the wilful blindness analysis and by making adverse credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the trial judge's mischaracterization of the wilful blindness standard, the factual findings supported a subjective finding of wilful blindness.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $23,251.25 for unpaid doors.

The appellant argued the respondent fraudulently misrepresented that it would be in Ontario 'for the long run', inducing the contract.

The trial judge found no misrepresentation, preferring the respondent's evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in his factual findings.

The court also declined to hear new issues raised by the appellant on appeal, as leave was not sought under Rule 61.08(2).

The Monitor of Target Canada Co. and its affiliates, undergoing CCAA proceedings, sought advice and directions from the court regarding the treatment of several late-filed claims.

The court applied the four-part test from *Blue Range Resource Corp. Re*, considering inadvertence, good faith, and prejudice to other creditors.

The court found that five claimants (Fruits & Passion, Lou Pharma, Kulwinder Kaur Rai, Capital Brands Inc., and Mohammad Alam) satisfied the test, allowing their claims against Target Canada Co. However, claims against Target Corporation and Target Brands were barred due to the prejudice caused by disturbing the sanctioned plan and releases, which Target Corporation relied upon for its significant contributions.

The court also provided directions on distributions for allowed late claims and a framework for addressing future unknown late claims, emphasizing the finality of the sanctioned plan.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking production of documents in insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful parties.

Applying the reasonableness principle and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed costs claimed by the monitor, the creditors’ committee, and the applicants.

The court rejected arguments that certain participants should receive reduced or no costs and instead fixed reasonable amounts reflecting their participation in the motion.

Costs were awarded to each successful party and ordered payable within 30 days.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the moving party sought an order requiring the Monitor to disclose all information and documents it considered when reviewing proofs of claim submitted by another creditor group.

The moving party intended to use this information at a claims hearing to argue that the claims officer should apply the same standard of proof used by the Monitor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the roles of the Monitor and the claims officer under the claims procedure order were fundamentally different, and the request constituted an impermissible collateral attack on that order.

Furthermore, the court noted that comparing claims would result in an unnecessary trial within a trial and risk disclosing confidential lending practices.

A class action brought by automobile dealers challenged a manufacturer’s 2009 wind‑down agreements issued during the global financial crisis, alleging breaches of the statutory duty of fair dealing, disclosure obligations, and the right of association under franchise legislation.

The court held the manufacturer did not breach its contractual or statutory obligations in implementing the dealer reduction plan or issuing the agreements under urgent restructuring circumstances.

However, the law firm advising the dealer group was found to have breached fiduciary duties, contractual duties, and the standard of care by acting despite conflicts of interest and failing to properly advise the dealers during the restructuring process.

The court concluded that the lawyers’ misconduct deprived the dealers of a real opportunity to negotiate improved termination compensation.

Aggregate damages were therefore awarded for loss of that negotiation opportunity.