Hayden Trbizan

Lien claimants sought orders protecting their construction lien claims from dismissal under sections 37 and 46 of the Construction Act due to claims not being set down for trial within two years of commencement.

The claims had been stayed by receivership orders.

The court granted the orders sought, finding that the processes employed were not undermining the policy of the Construction Act and that the circumstances warranted protection of the lien claims while the receivership proceeded.

The court emphasized the importance of balancing insolvency principles with the statutory intent of the Construction Act to deal with liens expeditiously.

The defendants (other than Johnson Controls) brought a motion to stay the action based on alleged failure by the plaintiff and Johnson Controls to immediately disclose a settlement agreement (the Pro Rata Agreement) that they claimed changed the litigation landscape.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that timely disclosure was made in the context of this particular case and that the agreement did not change the litigation landscape because the action had been effectively stayed and the dispute was being pursued in arbitration.

The court also addressed the application of new Rule 49.14 regarding partial settlement disclosure and fashioned appropriate remedies.

The appellant, Janice Antonio, Executrix of The Estate of Inez Antonio, appealed a discretionary decision of an Associate Justice to extend the time to set the action down for trial under rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the Associate Justice correctly identified and applied the legal test, considered the relevant evidence, and exercised discretion appropriately.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs, Dentalcorp Health Services Ltd. and related entities, sought an interim, interlocutory, and permanent injunction against the defendants, Dr. Arsalan Poorsina and his professional corporations, for alleged breaches of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.

These agreements stemmed from the plaintiffs' 2016 purchase of five dental clinics from Dr. Poorsina.

The court found that the plaintiffs had a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were breached and were enforceable, given they were negotiated by sophisticated parties in the context of a business sale.

However, the motion for injunction was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, particularly due to the plaintiffs' significant delay in seeking injunctive relief and the fact that the restrictive covenant's term was nearing its end.

This is an appeal from an order of the Commercial List judge concerning insolvency proceedings.

The appellants, Bryton, sought to exercise an option to purchase a property and obtain orders declaring the option valid and immune from challenge by other creditors under various acts (Fraudulent Conveyances Act, Assignments and Preferences Act, Canada Business Corporations Act oppression remedy, and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act).

The application judge dismissed Bryton's request for a vesting order and declaratory relief, finding that the claims were not res judicata and that declaratory relief was not the appropriate vehicle to pre-emptively bar unadjudicated creditor claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, confirming that the validity of the option was not res judicata and that the refusal to grant declaratory relief was a proper exercise of discretion, as the application procedure was not suitable for dismissing unproven claims.

The plaintiff, KEB Hana Bank Canada, sued the defendant, Gil Shcoylar, for breach of agreements of purchase and sale (APS) after the defendant repudiated an unconditional offer to purchase three properties and failed to pay a $100,000 deposit.

The defendant argued the agreements were not binding due to alleged lack of signature and that no damages were sustained as the properties were later sold.

The court found the APSs valid and binding, accepting the real estate broker's testimony over the defendant's contradictory denials of signature.

The court ruled that an unpaid, unconditional deposit can be forfeited, awarding the plaintiff the $100,000 deposit.