Robert Choi

The applicant credit union sought an order appointing a receiver and manager over the property and assets of the respondent hotel franchisee and its owner due to significant loan defaults.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing they had a plan to sell the property and refinance to pay off their creditors.

The court found the respondents' proposed sale agreement was not firm and lacked evidence of financial viability.

Concluding that the applicant's security was at risk and a receiver was necessary to stabilize the business, the court granted the application and appointed the receiver, though it declined to authorize an immediate assignment into bankruptcy.

CIM Bayview filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the BIA and sought to disclaim an Amended Option Agreement that granted Bryton Creek the right to purchase a development property.

CIM Bayview argued the option could be disclaimed, vested out, or was void for imposing a criminal rate of interest or violating the Interest Act.

The court dismissed CIM Bayview's motion, finding the option created an immediate interest in land that could not be disclaimed or vested out.

The court also found the option did not constitute a criminal rate of interest or a penalty.

The court lifted the stay of proceedings to allow Bryton Creek to exercise its option.

The parties could not agree on the terms of a formal order following a previous endorsement.

The court resolved the disputes over the competing draft orders, deciding to include a reference to the Investigative Receiver's Interim Report, declining to add a preamble regarding an undertaking as to damages, and including a paragraph explicitly dismissing the defendant's motion to set aside an ex parte order for lack of full and fair disclosure.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation, a Mareva injunction, and the appointment of an Investigative Receiver.

The defendant Bayview Creek (CIM) LP moved to set aside the injunction, arguing the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts.

The court found no material non-disclosure or lack of frankness regarding the plaintiffs' allegations of misrepresentation and breach of terms.

Due to the complex commercial interests involved, including mortgagees intending to bring enforcement proceedings, the court transferred the matter to the Commercial List and extended the interim orders.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was granted specific performance and an abatement of the purchase price, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court found that the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation and trial was egregious, including failing to respond to interlocutory steps, attempting to amend pleadings on the first day of trial, and calling witnesses to provide unpled and unpersuasive evidence.

As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $210,000 inclusive of HST.

The plaintiff brought an action for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for vacant commercial land, with an abatement of the purchase price due to the defendant's failure to install municipal services.

The defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim admitted the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance, but at trial, the defendant attempted to argue the agreement was null and void.

The court held the defendant to its pleadings, found the plaintiff entitled to specific performance, and granted an abatement of the purchase price based on the estimated cost for the plaintiff to independently service the lands.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction freezing the defendants' assets based on allegations of unpaid loans and fraudulent conveyance of proceeds from the sale of a house.

On the motion to continue the injunction, the plaintiffs sought to introduce new evidence obtained through the ex parte order.

The court refused to admit the new evidence, holding that a motion to continue is a hearing de novo where the responding party can test the original record.

The court found the original record insufficient to establish a strong prima facie case or a serious risk of dissipation against the defendant daughters, and terminated the injunction against them.

The plaintiffs were successful at trial, receiving an award of over $2.2 million USD based on findings of active misrepresentations and material non-disclosures by the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs of $960,432.26, while the defendants argued for substantial indemnity costs of $500,000.

The court found that the defendants' continued deceit during the litigation and trial constituted reprehensible conduct justifying an extraordinary award.

The court awarded the plaintiffs full indemnity costs in the fixed amount of $960,432.26.

The debtors filed Notices of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

They brought a motion seeking administrative consolidation of their proceedings, approval of DIP financing with a super priority charge, administration and D&O charges, approval of a stalking horse sale process, and an extension of time to file a proposal.

The court granted all the requested relief, finding that the DIP financing and charges were necessary for the debtors to continue operations and that the stalking horse sale process was fair, transparent, and the best alternative to maximize value for stakeholders.

The plaintiffs invested $1.25 million USD in the defendants' rehabilitative shoe insert business, Barefoot Science, based on representations that the company owned its intellectual property.

The plaintiffs later discovered the principal defendant secretly owned the patents and had forged documents to protect his reversionary interest.

The court found the defendants liable for deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, and oppression.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $2.2 million USD, varied the security agreements to capture the intellectual property, and declared the forged agreements void.

The moving party sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the landlord from dealing with commercial property and sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation in a dispute over whether an agreement to lease remained binding after conditional periods and alleged waivers.

The court held there was a serious question to be tried on enforceability, including estoppel arising from the landlord's conduct, timing of waiver under a tenant diligence clause, and the landlord's delayed reliance on a financial-condition termination clause.

The court also found a serious question to be tried regarding specific performance because the property was arguably unique for the intended automobile dealership use.

Injunctive relief was continued only until the disposition of an expedited summary judgment motion, subject to $150,000 security and expanded undertakings as to damages.

Leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation was refused as unnecessary in light of the injunction.