3 total
Appeal dismissed; unallocated trust funds properly directed to the Law Society's compensation fund.
The appellant appealed an order directing the payment of unallocated trust funds into the Law Society's compensation fund.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the order was a valid distribution under section 49.47(2) of the Law Society Act.
The Court held that section 51(2) does not exhaustively set out monies payable into the compensation fund, and sections 59.6 through 59.14 do not mandate payment of unallocated funds into the unclaimed trust fund account.
Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent.
Costs awarded after unsuccessful cross-motion challenging trusteeship order.
Following the dismissal of a cross-motion challenging the basis for a trusteeship order, the successful party sought costs.
The responding party opposed the request and alleged misconduct by the moving party and its counsel, including an alleged violation of s. 49.53 of the Law Society Act.
The court held that the statutory provision relied upon was inapplicable and that the allegations of impropriety were unsupported by evidence and largely repeated arguments already rejected.
Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful party, with a reduction to disallow the unnecessary attendance of a second counsel.
Appeal by receiver dismissed for egregious self-dealing; cross-appeal allowed to permit tracing of improperly acquired property.
The appellants, a privately appointed receiver and his company, appealed a trial judgment ordering an accounting and denying receiver's fees due to egregious breaches of fiduciary duty and self-dealing in the receivership of a horse farming operation.
The respondents cross-appealed, seeking the equitable remedy of tracing regarding a specific farm property improperly acquired by the receiver's nephew.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding overwhelming evidence of the receiver's complete failure to appreciate his duties, including acting in conflict of interest.
The Court allowed the cross-appeal in part, granting the respondents the right to trace the proceeds realized from the farm property and ordering the receiver to disgorge any profits.