Kristina Bezprozvannykh

The plaintiff sought to enforce a settlement agreement reached at a pretrial conference, moving for judgment under Rule 49.09(a).

The court granted leave to bring the motion and found that a valid settlement agreement had been reached.

However, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.09(a) to refuse enforcement of the settlement, finding that it would lead to a clear injustice due to the recent discovery of serious structural deficiencies in the defendants' home, which were unknown at the time of the purported settlement.

This endorsement concerns a motion by Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation and its subsidiaries (the Applicants) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a Subscription Agreement, a reverse vesting order (ARVO), releases for various parties, a sealing order, and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The proposed transaction involves First Generation Capital (FGC), the majority shareholder and secured creditor, acquiring the Applicants' business via a credit bid and share transaction, with excluded assets and liabilities vested out to Residual Cos.

The court analyzed the necessity and fairness of the ARVO structure, the sales process, the benefit to creditors compared to bankruptcy, and the appropriateness of the releases, ultimately granting all requested relief.

The Landlord, Daniels CCW Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Tenant, Larisa Shevchuk, and the Indemnifier, Emmanuel Paul, in a commercial lease dispute.

The Landlord sought damages for lost rents and pre-judgment interest after the Tenant defaulted on rent payments and the lease was terminated.

The Defendants admitted liability for arrears but disputed the claim for lost future rent, arguing failure to mitigate and improper damage calculation.

The court found the evidentiary record sufficient for summary judgment, rejecting the Defendants' arguments regarding mitigation and damage calculation, particularly given the re-letting of the premises.

The Landlord was granted judgment for $184,359.62.

The third party, Onward, moved to permanently stay the main action based on a release containing a no-claims-over clause that the plaintiff had signed in its favour.

The defendant, Enercare, had commenced a third-party claim against Onward for contribution and indemnity.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had expressly waived its right to recover any damages attributable to Onward's fault in its amended statement of claim.

Applying the principle from Taylor v. Canada, the court held that this waiver eliminated any viable claim-over by Enercare against Onward, meaning the main action was not a prohibited proceeding under the release.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that the offer lacked a genuine element of compromise, as it essentially demanded the defendants either purchase the property or pay equivalent damages.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $150,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, after deducting costs for an earlier consent motion and an unsuccessful summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff corporation entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to buy a residential property from the defendants.

The defendants subsequently refused to close the transaction, breaching the agreement.

The plaintiff sued for specific performance, arguing the property was uniquely suited as a recreational compound for its principals' extended family.

The defendants argued the purchase was a commercial investment and damages were the appropriate remedy.

The court found the property had a peculiar and special value to the plaintiff and ordered specific performance.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for breaching an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to close the transaction after the real estate market declined and she was unable to secure sufficient financing.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, rejecting the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's agent misrepresented the property's value.

Summary judgment was granted, the $60,000 deposit was forfeited, and the plaintiff was awarded $98,936.56 in damages for loss of bargain and carrying costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from a summary judgment that set aside two transactions by a bankrupt: the transfer of his 50% interest in his residence to his wife as an undervalue transfer and fraudulent conveyance, and the transfer of shares in a corporation to a non-arms length creditor as an improper preference.

The appellants argued the claims were time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, confirming that the limitation period for the Trustee's claims began upon the Trustee's appointment and that the amended statement of claim did not introduce a new cause of action.

The court also rejected the abuse of process argument as speculative.

A cross-appeal on costs by the Trustee, seeking substantial indemnity, was also dismissed, with the court deferring to the motion judge's assessment of partial indemnity costs.