Marshall James Dupuy

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion to approve the sale of a jointly owned property and for ancillary relief, including approval of fees and an interim distribution of proceeds.

The respondent opposed the sale, challenging the appraisals, the rejection of his own bid, and the receiver's fees.

Applying the Soundair test, the court found that the receiver made sufficient efforts to obtain the best price, considered the interests of all parties, and conducted a fair process with integrity.

The court approved the sale, the receiver's fees, and an interim distribution of the proceeds to the applicant to satisfy outstanding obligations under a prior divorce agreement.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff former city councillor's statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff had sued for constructive dismissal, alleging she was forced to resign due to workplace harassment by another councillor.

The court found that under municipal law and the statutory framework, an elected city councillor is not an employee of the municipality.

Consequently, the employment-based claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were struck, with leave granted to amend the pleadings.

The applicant sought the appointment of a receiver to sell an apartment building in Toronto and the recognition and enforcement of a New York Supreme Court order.

The parties, formerly married, had a divorce agreement requiring the applicant to receive US$500,000 for her interest in the property by June 2020, which the respondent had repeatedly frustrated.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver due to the respondent's deliberate obstruction, the parties' impasse, the impending mortgage maturity, and the property's negative cash flow.

The court also recognized and enforced the New York order for interest, rental revenues, and costs, finding the New York court had jurisdiction, the order was final, and no valid defenses were raised.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax classification of lands used for gravel pit operations.

The Board had classified more of the licensed land as 'industrial' rather than 'residential', interpreting the relevant regulation to include lands used for activities integral to extraction, such as processing, stockpiling, and movement of machinery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in a manner consistent with the operational realities of mining and properly applied the statutory classification day based on the land's function.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision and interim decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal in respect to the questions of law identified in the moving parties' factum.

Consistent with the court's usual practice, no reasons were provided for the leave decision.