Martin Zvi Black

The applicant sought entitlement to life insurance proceeds to reimburse expenses for her father's care prior to his death.

The respondent sought removal of the applicant from her positions as estate trustee and trustee of a trust holding corporate shares, and challenged the validity of the deceased's will and trust provisions.

The court found the applicant entitled to the insurance proceeds based on a binding agreement, upheld the validity of the will and trust, declined to remove the applicant as director or estate trustee, but removed her as trustee of the shares due to conflict of interest.

The court considered two motions: (1) by the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (the 501 Parties) for leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and (2) by the Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim (the 2B Parties) for a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The court granted the 501 Parties' motion, finding no abuse of process or limitation period bar, and authorized the Amended Pleading.

The court also largely granted the 2B Parties' request for further production, ordering disclosure of missing bank records and email attachments, and set out a process for resolving any further disputes over redactions or missing documents.

The court granted a motion to remove D. Kenneth Gibson and Gibson LLP as counsel of record for Wildpine Residence Inc. in a construction lien proceeding, due to Mr. Gibson's role as a key material witness at trial.

The decision addresses the conflict between a lawyer's role as advocate and as witness, and the need to preserve the integrity of the trial process.

The court found that the interests of justice required the removal of Mr. Gibson and his firm, and ordered Wildpine Residence Inc. to appoint alternative counsel within 60 days.

The court considered costs following the dismissal of a motion to set aside a default judgment for foreclosure and the noting in default of the defendant, Eric Manirambona.

The court found that the defendant's conduct, including intentional delay and false allegations, warranted an award of substantial indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $28,000, payable forthwith by the defendant to the plaintiff, and excluded Ural Link Ltd. from the costs order as it did not participate in the motion.

The applicant, Harmur Investments Limited, sought a vesting order declaring that it had acquired, through adverse possession, title to two parcels of land in the Township of Greater Madawaska.

The court found that Harmur had not acquired title to the parcel known as "the Triangle" but had acquired title to the parcel known as "the Boathouse Parcel." The decision provides a detailed analysis of the requirements for adverse possession under Ontario law, including the necessity of actual possession, intention to exclude, and effective exclusion of the true owner.

The defendant, Eric Manirambona, moved to set aside a default judgment for foreclosure on a commercial property in Renfrew, Ontario.

The court reviewed the chronology of events, the defendant’s financial circumstances, and the applicable legal principles.

The court found that the motion was not brought with reasonable promptness, there was no reasonable prospect of payment, and the defendant had not been active in raising the necessary funds.

The court also found no special circumstances or intrinsic value in the property for the defendant.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving parties, Orange Transport Inc., Charbel Matar, and Maroun Aoun, sought a Mareva injunction against Joe Nahra to prevent him from transferring or encumbering his property and disposing of assets, and a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on his property.

They alleged Nahra breached fiduciary duties, misappropriated funds, and competed directly with Orange Transport, causing significant losses.

Nahra disputed the allegations, claiming he was divested of directorial authority before competing and that asset sales were for legitimate expenses.

The court dismissed both the Mareva injunction and CPL requests, finding the moving parties did not establish a strong prima facie case, nor did they prove Nahra's intent to defraud by dissipating assets.

The balance of convenience also did not favor granting the injunction, and the CPL was denied as the claim did not assert an interest in the land and was not pleaded.

This motion concerned the entitlement to funds held in court, initially part of a beneficiary's share of an estate, which were subject to a condition (provision of a letter of credit) that was never met.

The beneficiary, now an undischarged bankrupt, purported to assign his interest in these funds to a charitable foundation for his children before his bankruptcy.

The Estate Trustee and Trustee in Bankruptcy sought an order directing the funds to be paid out according to their settlement.

The court addressed the standing of the bankrupt and the foundation, the application of the Law of Assent regarding the transfer of estate assets, and whether the purported assignment was a reviewable transaction under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that neither the bankrupt nor the foundation had standing, that the Estate Trustee had never assented to the transfer of the funds to the bankrupt, and that the purported assignment was a reviewable transaction made for nominal consideration to non-arm's length parties with inferred intent to defraud creditors.

The motions brought by the Estate Trustee and Trustee in Bankruptcy were granted, directing the funds to be paid to the bankruptcy estate and the estate creditors.

The appellant, Joanne Sicotte, appealed a motion judge's decision that dismissed her summary judgment motion on a commercial mortgage guarantee and instead granted summary judgment to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by conflating the primary debt with the guarantee obligations and misinterpreting "owing" versus "enforceable" debt.

The appeal was allowed, the lower order set aside, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the appellant against the guarantors.

The Third Party sought costs after partially succeeding on a motion to strike claims in an Amended Third Party Claim.

The Defendant opposed, arguing the motion was unnecessary and the Third Party introduced a new issue late.

The court found divided success on the motion to strike and unreasonable behaviour from both parties, including the Defendant's poorly drafted Third Party Claim and the Third Party's improper Demand for Particulars and late introduction of an objection.

Consequently, no costs were awarded to either party.

The Third Party, RE/MAX Ontario-Atlantic Canada Inc. o/a RE/MAX Integra, brought a motion to strike portions of the Amended Third Party Claim filed by the Defendant, RE/MAX Core Realty Inc. The claims sought to be struck included allegations of unfair business practices, breaches of common law duties of fair dealing and good faith, breaches of the Arthur Wishart Act, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court struck the claims for unfair business practices (by consent) and intentional interference with economic relations (without leave to amend).

The claims for breaches of common law and statutory duties of good faith were struck but with leave for the Defendant to amend its pleading to include necessary material facts linking the allegations to the Franchise Agreement.

The court also clarified that allegations regarding a disciplinary matter could be included as particulars for the good faith claims, provided they were properly tied to the Franchise Agreement.

The bankrupt, Raymond Henry Lalonde, sought discharge from bankruptcy.

Jevco Insurance Company, an unsecured creditor, opposed the discharge on two grounds under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act: assets not equaling $0.50 on the dollar of unsecured liabilities (s. 173(1)(a)), and putting creditors to unnecessary expense by a frivolous or vexatious defence (s. 173(1)(f)).

The court found the s. 173(1)(a) ground was met, as the bankrupt's assets were significantly less than 50% of liabilities, and he was responsible for signing the indemnity.

The court did not find the s. 173(1)(f) ground met regarding a frivolous defence, as the statement of defence was not in evidence.

However, the court found the bankrupt's conduct in filing false Articles of Dissolution for a corporation, stating no proceedings were pending, to be dishonest.

Balancing the interests of the bankrupt and creditors, and considering the dishonesty, the court granted a conditional discharge, requiring an additional payment of $6,000 to the Trustee for the benefit of creditors, in addition to the $50,000 for equity repurchase.

A construction company brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages after its employee fraudulently forged company cheques and deposited them into a third party’s bank account.

The employee forged signatures on twelve cheques and deposited them into the cohabiting partner’s account, from which most funds were withdrawn.

The court held that the tort of conversion is one of strict liability and that depositing funds belonging to another into an account without legal entitlement constitutes conversion, regardless of the account holder’s innocence or lack of knowledge of the fraud.

Summary judgment was granted against both the employee and the account holder for the remaining loss.

The court also declared that the employee’s liability arose from fraud and misappropriation while acting in a fiduciary capacity and would not be released in bankruptcy.