Gleb Bazov

The applicants, investors and shareholders of the respondent mortgage investment corporation, sought the appointment of a receiver and manager over the respondent's properties and assets under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent opposed the application and brought a motion to stay or strike the application, arguing technical deficiencies regarding a co-lender not being named as a party and an allegedly defective s. 244 BIA notice.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no prejudice or injustice from the technical defects.

The court granted the receivership order, concluding it was just and convenient given the respondent's insolvency, default on obligations, and the need for an investigatory receiver to determine the status of the investors' funds and remaining assets.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the cross appeal.

Because the appeal and cross appeal were intertwined, the court adjourned both matters without a fixed date so they could be heard together following a motion under section 6(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Enforcement of the payment order was stayed pending further order.

The moving party sought leave to appeal his conviction for disobeying a traffic sign, arguing he should have been charged under a more specific provision and that the unilingual English sign was invalid under the French Language Services Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the prosecutor was entitled to proceed under the general provision and that the City of Toronto is not required to have bilingual traffic signs because it has not passed a by-law under section 14 of the French Language Services Act.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenants appealed both the Board's decision to grant a review and its subsequent decision that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to their relationship.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash the appeal regarding the decision to grant a review, finding it was out of time and declining to extend the time limit.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash the appeal on the merits, concluding it was premature to determine whether the appeal raised a question of law without full submissions.

The appellant law firm appealed an order allowing the respondent client to assess a paid account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that under s. 3 of the Solicitors Act, a client may apply for the assessment of a delivered account upon requisition from the registrar within 30 days of delivery, regardless of whether the account has been paid.

The court clarified that ss. 3 and 11 of the Act can both apply to paid accounts, with the 30-day period serving as the dividing line for when an assessment can be directed by the Registrar.

The appellant, Robert Hryniak, brought a motion to extend the time to perfect his appeal from a summary judgment finding he defrauded the respondents.

The respondents opposed and brought cross-motions to lift the stay pending appeal and for security, citing concerns that the appellant was dissipating assets, specifically his matrimonial home.

The Court of Appeal analyzed the test for extending time, including a detailed review of the merits of the appeal concerning the newly amended Rule 20 summary judgment powers.

The Court granted the extension of time but, to prevent prejudice and asset dissipation, imposed strict terms requiring the appellant to post a $950,000 letter of credit and provide an undertaking not to encumber assets.

The respondents' cross-motions were dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action for failing to comply with a consent order to post $200,000 in security for costs.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the appeal, alleging the respondents' counsel was in a conflict of interest.

The court denied the adjournment, noting the delay and the discrete legal issue on appeal.

On the merits, the court upheld the Master's finding that under Form 56A of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an order for security for costs requires payment in cash unless the order specifies another form of security.

The appellants' attempt to file a late, foreign letter of credit covering only one plaintiff was insufficient.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who downloaded items, including a curriculum vitae, from a colleague's personal computer without consent.

The member pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct, including failing to maintain the standards of the profession and engaging in unprofessional conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, completion of a course on professional boundaries and ethics, and publication of the decision in summary form without the member's name.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing a motion to quash an Assessment Order to the Divisional Court.

The respondent argued the order was final and outside the Divisional Court's jurisdiction under s. 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court agreed the order was final as it disposed of a substantive right.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the motion judge in a bankruptcy and insolvency proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, declining to consider arguments that were not placed before the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal.

The court applied the test from Duca Community Credit Union Ltd. v. Giovannoli, finding that there was a firm intention to appeal immediately, no uncompensable prejudice to the respondent, the appeal was not frivolous, and the delay was not long.

The motion was granted, with costs awarded to the respondent due to the moving party's fault in necessitating the motion.

The appellants appealed a judgment that awarded the respondents a declaration of trespass, general damages, punitive damages, and costs following a property line dispute over a fence.

The application judge had decided the matter under Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure despite conflicting affidavit evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that Rule 14.05(3) is not available for the resolution of general and punitive damage claims where material facts are in dispute.

The court set aside the damages and costs awards and directed a trial of an issue regarding the respondents' entitlement to damages.