Ly Tuong Nguyen

The appellant appealed the order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The court considered a motion by a court‑appointed receiver seeking approval of an agreement of purchase and sale for property owned by the respondent corporation.

The first mortgagee and the second mortgagee supported the proposed sale despite a projected shortfall on the second mortgage.

A shareholder objected, arguing the property should first be marketed through MLS and pointing to higher appraisals.

The court accepted the receiver’s evidence regarding market uncertainties, marketing timelines, and financial realities, including the absence of any realistic economic benefit to the objecting shareholder.

The motion approving the sale was granted.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing he was denied procedural fairness because he was given only thirteen days over the Christmas holidays to pay rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting the tenant failed to attend the original hearing, took no steps to pay the arrears after receiving notice, and continued to reside in the property rent-free for ten months.

The defendant vendor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the purchaser’s claim, discharge of a certificate of pending litigation, and permission to sell a commercial property to another buyer.

The dispute arose from an agreement of purchase and sale containing a due diligence condition allowing the purchaser to waive the condition after reviewing documentation and conducting inspections.

The vendor argued the conditional period had expired and that the purchaser was unable to obtain financing, rendering the agreement null and void.

The purchaser alleged the vendor failed to provide required documentation and obstructed due diligence, preventing completion of financing and waiver of conditions.

The court held that material facts were contested and that a full appreciation of the evidence required viva voce testimony and the full trial process.

The appellant appealed a bankruptcy order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the respondents were owed more than $1,000 due to a prior costs order and that the appellant was unable to pay his debts as they came due within six months of the application.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties, two not-for-profit corporations in receivership, sought an interim order allowing their boards of directors to retain counsel for an appeal and directing that the legal fees be paid from the corporations' assets.

The motion judge had previously ruled the boards could not retain counsel without leave of the court or the receiver's approval.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, holding that the boards' right to pursue the appeal would be hollow without counsel, and ordered that reasonable legal fees be paid from the corporations' assets.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment on a counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellants failed to maintain an intent to defend during the nearly two-year default period.

The failure to defend was not a mere technical slip.

The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy unless he paid certain arrears and fees.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant paid the required sum of $6,880.11 and remained in the rental unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot and awarded costs of $750 to the respondent.

The appellant, a Swiss manufacturing company, appealed a Master's order dismissing its motion to stay a breach of contract action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Master had found that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the action and that Switzerland was not clearly a more appropriate forum.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle in the Master's application of the jurisdiction and forum non conveniens tests.

The appeal of the $44,000 costs award was also dismissed.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Master's decision setting aside a second noting in default.

A previous judge had set aside an initial noting in default and granted the defendants 10 days to file a statement of defence.

The appellant refused to agree to the form of order, preventing the defendants from filing their defence, and then noted them in default again after 15 days.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master properly exercised her discretion to set aside the second noting in default, as the defendants could not file their defence until the order was entered.