Margaret R. Sims

The appellant, David Aiello, appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a default judgment and noting in default.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in principle and made palpable and overriding errors of fact in applying the factors for setting aside default judgment from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen.

Specifically, the motion judge misapplied the first and second factors by considering the entire litigation history, ignored relevant facts regarding the appellant's default, and applied too high a standard for an arguable defence, failing to consider the quantum of damages as a viable defence.

The Court concluded that it would be unjust to prevent the appellant from having his day in court, given the significant prejudice of a multi-million dollar judgment and the overarching principle of determining proceedings on their merits.

The receiver of assets in receivership proceedings moved to determine whether an appeal brought by Canada Investment Corporation (CIC) from an order of Penny J. was as of right or required leave under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The order had directed that proceeds from the sale of the Caldwell property, otherwise payable to CIC, be paid to the Stanbarr Claimants based on findings in a prior action that CIC was indebted to them.

The motions judge held that the appeal was as of right under section 193(c) of the BIA because the order resulted in a loss to CIC by directing payment of funds otherwise due to it to third parties.

The receiver's motion was dismissed.

A bankruptcy trustee appointed in Japan sought recognition of Japanese bankruptcy proceedings relating to a cryptocurrency exchange operator under Part XIII of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The application requested recognition of the foreign proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and a stay of Canadian litigation.

The court held that the Japanese bankruptcy qualified as a foreign proceeding and that the debtor's centre of main interests was Japan, where its registered office, management, and operations were located.

Recognition as a foreign main proceeding triggered the automatic stay under s. 271(1) of the BIA, including a stay of an Ontario class action.

The application was granted.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision dismissing its appeal from a claims officer's ruling in a receivership proceeding.

The appellant argued the claims officer erred in characterizing certain assets as chattels rather than fixtures, improperly placed the burden of proof on the appellant, rejected expert evidence regarding how the assets were secured, and erred in assessing damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual determination of chattels versus fixtures, and no error in principle regarding the burden of proof or damages assessment.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which found it had jurisdiction to hear a complaint regarding a withdrawn job offer following a positive pre-employment drug test for marijuana.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to dismiss the complaint, as recreational marijuana use without actual or perceived disability does not fall under the protected ground of disability in the Human Rights Code.

The Court granted an order of prohibition preventing the Tribunal from hearing the complaint.

The applicants brought an application for judicial review to quash the respondent municipality's issuance of nine new taxicab owner licences to a competitor.

The municipality had used a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to select the recipient, rather than the criteria set out in its taxi by-law.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness.

The court found the issuance was a nullity because the municipal council never actually passed a resolution approving the issuance.

Furthermore, the RFP process was unlawful because it imposed criteria and conditions not authorized by the taxi by-law or the Municipal Act.

The application was granted and the issuance of the licences was quashed.

The applicant sought an order of prohibition to prevent the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario from hearing a complaint referred to it by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint, and that the Tribunal was incorrect or unreasonable in deciding it had jurisdiction.

The complaint was dismissed, with detailed reasons to follow.

The appellant landlord appealed an order permitting a receiver to take over the tenant's position under a commercial lease.

The landlord argued the motion judges exercised their discretion in an unprincipled way and that there was material non-disclosure on a without notice motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the receivership order justly balanced the interests of the employees and the landlord, as the landlord was receiving rent and had not shown prejudice.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the finding of no material non-disclosure.

The moving parties on this costs motion sought costs for their opposition to a stay motion, an application for leave to appeal, and the costs motion itself, claiming up to $67,000.

The Court of Appeal awarded $20,000 in costs for the stay proceeding, noting that the Ministry's decision to terminate the charity's funding had been quashed.

The court declined to alter its previous costs order of $1,500 for the leave to appeal motion.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful application against the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which had cancelled its contract with the applicant charitable organization and seized its property without authority.

The Divisional Court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, noting the government's unfair treatment of the applicant and the complexity of the proceedings.

Costs were fixed at $120,000 plus GST.

The appellant tenant breached a commercial lease by abandoning the premises.

The respondent landlord subsequently leased the property to a new tenant, with a 10-month overlap of the original lease term.

The tenant appealed the trial judge's calculation of damages, arguing the landlord received a benefit from avoiding a lengthy vacancy period.

The landlord cross-appealed regarding the deduction of tax consultant fees and the apportionment of rent-free periods and improvements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding the tenant's mitigation argument was not pleaded and relied on speculation.

The cross-appeal was allowed in part, permitting the landlord to deduct the 50% contingency fee paid to a tax consultant to obtain a property tax rebate.

The applicant, a non-profit charity providing services to developmentally disabled individuals, sought judicial review of a Ministry decision terminating its funding and directing another agency to take over its operations and property.

The Ministry made the decision without notice, citing a loss of confidence following a series of serious occurrences.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the decision was the exercise of a statutory power and thus amenable to judicial review.

The court held the decision was illegal and made without jurisdiction because the Ministry failed to obtain the required order in council under the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.

Furthermore, the decision was patently unreasonable and breached the duty of fairness owed to the applicant.

The applicant, a non-profit organization providing services to developmentally disabled individuals, sought judicial review of the Ministry's decision to terminate its funding without notice and direct another agency to take over its operations and property.

The Ministry cited a loss of confidence following several 'serious occurrences'.

The Divisional Court held that the Ministry's actions constituted the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review.

The Court found the decision to be illegal, patently unreasonable, and a breach of the duty of fairness, as the Ministry failed to obtain the required Order in Council to seize the property and failed to provide the applicant with fair warning or an opportunity to respond.

The application was granted, and the Ministry was ordered to restore funding and return management to the applicant.