L. Galessiere

In a commercial lease dispute involving allegations of rent overpayment and underpayment, both the plaintiff tenant and defendant landlord brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordering both parties to answer certain questions and produce specific financial and lease-related documents, while dismissing requests that were overbroad or disproportionate.

The appellants appealed a Master's order severing their civil claims for historic sexual assault against a family member into separate actions.

The court considered the joinder provisions under Rules 5.01 and 5.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including whether the claims arose from the same series of occurrences and whether common issues of fact justified joinder.

The court held that allegations of sexual assault against siblings occurring in the same location and general time period could constitute a series of occurrences and involve common factual issues.

Concerns about similar fact reasoning and potential tailoring of evidence were found to be matters better managed by the trial judge through evidentiary rulings and case management.

The appeal was allowed and the Master's severance order was set aside without prejudice to a future severance motion before the trial judge.

The defendant brought a motion to sever the claims of two plaintiffs who alleged historical sexual abuse by their uncle, arguing the claims did not meet the joinder test under Rule 5.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would cause prejudice if tried together.

The court held the claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence, did not raise common questions of fact or law, and would require separate evidence and expert testimony.

The court further found that joinder would complicate the proceedings and create prejudice given the significant passage of time and credibility issues.

Even if joinder were technically permissible, the court concluded severance was justified under Rule 5.05 due to undue prejudice.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pursue their claims in separate proceedings.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings involving a retail apparel company, the monitor sought approval of an asset sale agreement for the debtor’s Costa Blanca business and the debtor sought an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The court considered the criteria under ss. 36(3) and (4) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and found the sale process had been conducted fairly and transparently and that the proposed transaction provided the best available consideration to creditors, notwithstanding that the purchaser was related to the debtor.

Approval of the sale was granted subject to a condition requiring the transaction to close by a specified deadline, failing which the debtor and monitor were required to seek further court directions.

The court also granted the debtor’s request to extend the stay of proceedings, approve liquidation of certain store inventory and fixtures, continue a key employee retention plan, and authorize repayment of secured loans.