Mark Samuel Dunn

The court-appointed Monitor in CCAA proceedings brought a motion to approve a CSA Plan disclaiming 314 of 329 existing condominium sale agreements for an 85-storey tower at 1 Bloor Street West, Toronto, to approve a Deposit Return Protocol for refunding approximately $105 million in insured deposits, and to approve a reconfiguration reducing total residential units to 411.

The Monitor demonstrated that disclaimers would generate incremental proceeds exceeding $200 million by enabling resale at higher market prices under a luxury hotel brand.

The court applied the established three-part test for disclaiming pre-construction sale agreements under s. 32 of the CCAA, finding that the senior secured lenders held first-ranking priority, that failure to disclaim would amount to a preference for purchasers, and that the equities did not support maintaining the existing agreements.

The motion was granted, the Deposit Return Protocol and Monitor's reports were approved, and a sealing order was granted over confidential market analysis appendices.

An appeal from a Superior Court decision regarding the provability of a former employee's profit-sharing claim in the bankruptcy of a real estate development company.

The trustee disallowed the claim on the grounds that it was an equity claim and too contingent and remote.

The appeal judge allowed the appeal, finding the profit-sharing claim was a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract, not an equity claim, and was therefore provable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision and confirming that the profit-sharing claim is a provable claim that takes priority over the limited partners' equity claims.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an appeal by 100 Bloor Street West Corporation regarding the calculation of realty taxes and a substantial indemnity costs award in a commercial lease dispute with Barry’s Bootcamp Canada Inc. The court upheld the motion judge’s decision requiring the landlord to use a single, consistent method for calculating realty taxes attributable to both the leased premises and the building’s parking garage, rejecting the landlord’s attempt to “mix-and-match” calculation methods.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, finding the original award excessive and reducing it to $300,000 plus disbursements.

The decision clarifies the contractual interpretation of lease provisions granting discretion to landlords and the principles governing costs in complex commercial litigation.

This costs endorsement addresses the outcome of an interlocutory injunction motion brought by The Matter Corporation against Southside Construction Management Limited and others.

The court reviews the partial success of the plaintiff, the divided success of the parties, and the appropriate approach to costs in the context of interim injunctions.

The court ultimately fixes the plaintiff’s partial indemnity costs at $81,074.85, to be payable in the cause, after deducting amounts for unsuccessful relief and for work that will be used in discovery.

The Matter Corporation ("Matter Corp.") sought an interlocutory injunction against Southside Construction Management Limited ("Southside"), Vito Frijia, and Wonderland Power Centre Inc. ("Trustee Corporation") regarding a joint venture.

Matter Corp., a 50% beneficial owner, alleged Southside, the managing co-owner, failed to provide disclosure, consult, and seek approval for new development, working capital commitments, and future borrowing after the death of Matter Corp.'s principal.

The court applied the "strong prima facie case" standard for mandatory injunctions.

The court granted the Production Order for existing information and records and the New Development Order requiring Southside's consultation and consent for future development of new commercial and residential space on the Joint Venture Properties.

However, the court dismissed the Production Order for documents that do not exist, the New Development Order for working capital commitments related to existing commercial space, and the Borrowing Order, finding Matter Corp. did not meet the high merits standard for these aspects.

The court found irreparable harm for new development due to irreversible commitments and that the balance of convenience favored Matter Corp. for new development, but Southside for existing space leasing and borrowing.

This motion arose from a contentious landlord-tenant relationship, addressing the proper calculation of realty taxes and occupancy expenses, and costs, following a prior application.

The court found the Landlord improperly used inconsistent methods to calculate the Tenant's realty tax allocation.

While declining to rule on occupancy expenses in this motion, the court remained seized of the issue.

Critically, the Landlord was ordered to pay the Tenant substantial indemnity costs for both the original application and this motion, totaling $709,017.39, due to the Landlord's "reprehensible" conduct, including attempting to evict the tenant for an ulterior motive (a better offer from another party) and engaging in vexatious litigation tactics.

The Receiver sought and obtained two orders: a Construction Continuance Order to approve the engagement of a new construction manager (SKYGRiD) and extend a stay of proceedings, and a Lien Regularization Order to establish a court-supervised process for construction lien claims.

The court found jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, concluding that the orders were necessary and appropriate to ensure the ongoing construction of "The One" project and to manage lien claims efficiently without prejudicing claimants' substantive rights.

Objections from the former developer (Mizrahi Parties) regarding their own pending motion for fees were acknowledged but did not prevent the approval of the Receiver's requested orders.

In this proposed class action, the plaintiffs sought leave to proceed under the Securities Act and certification as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, against Kew Media Group Inc. for statutory and common law misrepresentation.

The alleged misrepresentations concerned Kew's financial health and compliance.

Kew consented to the orders.

The court granted leave to proceed and certification, defining the class and common issues, and appointed plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

The appellants, Limited Partners of a debtor in a bankruptcy proposal, appealed an order for directions regarding the process for an appeal of a proof of claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that the motion judge had not made any final orders regarding the appellants' standing in the anticipated claim appeal, but rather had made directions "subject to the discretion of the judge hearing the appeal." The court held that the possibility of influence or an incorrect underlying conclusion on discretionary standing was not a basis for appeal.

The Proposal Trustee sought directions from the court regarding the procedure for determining a complex proof of claim filed by Maria Athanasoulis, comprising a wrongful dismissal claim and a significant profit share claim, within the context of a court-approved proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The motion addressed disagreements among stakeholders (Athanasoulis, Sponsor, and Limited Partners) on how to proceed with the claim's determination and subsequent appeal, particularly concerning the scope of evidence, the nature of the appeal (true appeal vs. de novo), and the standing of the Limited Partners.

The court provided detailed directions to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency, deferring the valuation of future-oriented damages until after the provability of the profit share claim is determined on appeal, and limiting the Limited Partners' standing to specific issues.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on a limitation issue, arguing the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred due to discoverability.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, fiduciary duty, misappropriation, and unjust enrichment related to a cannabis business venture.

The court found that the discoverability issues were contentious and complex, with significant factual disputes overlapping with the merits of the claim.

The record did not allow for the necessary findings of fact with the certainty required for summary judgment.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were fixed in the cause.

Galleria Centre Inc. ("Galleria") applied for an order under s. 207 of the Business Corporations Act ("OBCA") to wind up a co-tenancy agreement or compel Terracap Galleria Centre Inc. ("Terracap") to purchase its interest in a condominium development project.

Terracap cross-applied for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the OBCA, alleging Galleria's refusal to participate was oppressive, and sought to purchase the property on just terms, with proceeds distributed according to the co-tenancy agreement.

The court dismissed Galleria's application, finding its "expectations" were not reasonable and that the co-tenancy agreement provided a mechanism for ending the relationship, rendering s. 207 unnecessary.

Terracap's claim for an oppression remedy was also dismissed, as Galleria's conduct, while potentially a breach of contract, was not oppressive given that contractual remedies were available.

However, Terracap's cross-application was allowed in part, with the court ordering the parties' disengagement to occur in accordance with Article 18 of the Co-Tenancy Agreement, which included the liquidation of assets and the application of Terracap's preferential distribution right.

Alexander Just was found guilty of two counts of production of cannabis marijuana and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors including the large-scale commercial nature of the operation, the use of foreign workers, and the significant street value of the seized cannabis.

Mitigating factors included his status as a first offender, strong community support, good character, and rehabilitation prospects.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence, while the defence proposed 12 months.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years in penitentiary, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, and declined a probation order.

The respondent, Krates Keswick Inc., purchased and took assignments of three loans made to the appellants and related companies.

The motion judge granted judgment against the appellants on all three loans, granted possession of the Marko Lands to the respondent, dismissed the appellants' counterclaim, and refused to stay enforcement of the judgment.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the motion judge's decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on all three loans and the dismissal of the counterclaim.

However, the court partially allowed the appeal by staying enforcement of the judgment relating to the two secured loans pending determination of what credit, if any, the appellants might be entitled to based on the value of the Marko Lands, which had been subject to a resulting trust determination in subsequent proceedings.

Enforcement of the unsecured loan was not stayed.

The plaintiffs, including Romijay Enterprises Ltd., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, led by 11 Yorkville Partners Inc., from holding a unit owner meeting to approve the sale of their condominium property.

The defendants, owning over 80% of the units, intended to sell the property to a non-arm's-length purchaser for redevelopment, relying on section 124(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The plaintiffs invoked the oppression remedy under section 135 of the Act, arguing that the forced sale of their unit, which held significant personal and emotional value to its controlling mind, Robert Berman, constituted oppressive conduct.

The court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the plaintiffs' reasonable expectation that their unit would not be sold to a non-arm's-length purchaser without their consent, that they would suffer irreparable harm due to the unit's unique value, and that the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo.

The applicants, Dr. Bernstein's corporations, moved for judgment against Norma Walton, Ronauld Walton, and their companies for $66.9 million, alleging civil fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, and sought a declaration that the debt would survive bankruptcy.

The Waltons brought a counter-application for damages and a cross-motion for a trial on the fraud issue.

Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corporation and Gideon and Irene Levytam also sought relief regarding their investments.

The court found the Waltons liable for civil fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, awarding the applicants $66.9 million plus interest, and declared the debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(d) and (e) of the BIA.

The Waltons' counter-application was struck as frivolous and vexatious.

The applicants' claims against Schedule C Companies for knowing assistance and knowing receipt were dismissed.

DeJong was granted constructive trusts over specific Schedule C properties for their investments due to the Waltons' breach of fiduciary duties.