Mary Paterson

The debtor applicants sought court approval for a pre-packaged sale ('quick flip') of their assets to a new company owned by existing management, pursuant to section 36 of the CCAA.

The proposed transaction was supported by the senior secured creditor but opposed by a subordinate secured creditor, BDC Capital Inc., who was excluded from the sales process and given minimal notice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the debtor failed to meet its burden under sections 36(3) and 36(4) of the CCAA.

The court held that the sales process lacked transparency, failed to make good faith efforts to sell to unrelated parties after the senior debt was purchased at a discount, and did not demonstrate that the proposed consideration was superior to other potential offers.

The court considered a motion for default judgment brought by the plaintiff, Ranjani Venkataramani, against Abdulla Abdul Fatah, 5053767 Ontario Inc. (operating as Apolo and Co.), John Doe Construction Corp, and Golden Seal Construction Corp. The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract, breach of the Consumer Protection Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and punitive damages arising from a failed home renovation.

The court granted partial default judgment for $80,000 against Apolo and the same amount jointly and severally against Apolo and Mr. Fatah under the Consumer Protection Act, but declined to award further damages for delay, lost rental income, additional interest, or punitive damages due to insufficient evidence.

The court also clarified the limited circumstances in which corporate officers can be held personally liable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Ms. Yan’s motion to stay a vexatious litigant order made against her under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, as she had not obtained leave from a judge of the Superior Court of Justice as required.

The court held it was not appropriate to grant leave in its ex officio capacity, especially where procedural requirements, including notice to the Attorney General, had not been met.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.

The appellant, a lawyer and former senior advisor to the Kenyan Prime Minister, appealed the dismissal of his defamation and breach of privacy action against Refinitiv Limited and Sitel Operating Corporation.

The action stemmed from his inclusion as a politically exposed person (PEP) in Refinitiv's World-Check Database, which allegedly led to a money transfer being held, and subsequent alleged defamatory statements by a Sitel customer service agent.

The motion judge had dismissed the action, finding the appellant was properly classified as a PEP, the database statements were true and publicly sourced, and any claims against Sitel were covered by a prior release or lacked evidence of defamation.

The motion judge also awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the appellant's unreasonable litigation conduct.

The Court of Appeal found no factual or legal errors in the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the claim was meritless and upholding the costs award.

The Atlas Group, undergoing CCAA proceedings, sought approval for a Reverse Vesting Order (RVO) for its AgMedica business, which was opposed by the Canada Revenue Agency regarding deemed trust claims.

The court approved the RVO, finding that the secured creditors' claims (DIP Lender and first mortgagee) had priority over the CRA's deemed trust for source deductions, consistent with the CCAA and relevant legislation.

For the GreenSeal business, the court granted the appointment of a Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO) to facilitate negotiations, rather than a full receivership, allowing secured creditors more direct control.

The defendants, Refinitiv Limited and Sitel Operating Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for defamation and breach of privacy.

The plaintiff, a former senior advisor to the Kenyan prime minister, alleged wrongful inclusion in Refinitiv's World-Check Database as a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) and defamatory statements by Sitel's customer service.

The court found that the statements in the database were true in substance and fact, thus upholding the defence of justification.

It also determined there was no breach of privacy as the information was from public sources.

The claims against Sitel were dismissed as the alleged defamatory statements were covered by a prior release, lacked evidence of defamation, and were based on true information from the database.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action in its entirety and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants due to the plaintiff's unreasonable litigation conduct and voluminous, unnecessary evidence.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action concerning failed syndicated mortgage investments brought a motion to lift a stay of proceedings and dismiss the action against the ADI Defendants.

A settlement had been reached in a related action (the FAAN Action) providing over $18.3 million to the investors, representing over 91% of the principal owed by the ADI Defendants.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, and approved the dismissal of the class action against the ADI Defendants without costs, as there was no prejudice to the putative class members.

The defendant, Olympia Trust Company, brought a consent motion to dismiss third-party proceedings against ADI Developments (Link) Inc., ADI Development Group Inc., and Tariq Adi.

The motion was brought after the plaintiff's main action against Olympia Trust was dismissed and a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving claims against the ADI Defendants was approved.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the third-party proceedings with prejudice and without costs, as the basis for the third-party claim was obviated and the dismissal was on consent.

Paladin Labs Inc., as foreign representative for itself and Paladin Labs Canadian Holding Inc. (the Canadian Debtors), brought a motion under section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for recognition and enforcement of two orders granted by the United States Bankruptcy Court in their Chapter 11 cases: a Bidding Procedures Order and a Bar Date Order.

The motion was unopposed.

The court granted the motion, finding that recognition was consistent with principles of comity and Canadian public policy, and would enable the Canadian Debtors to proceed with the sale process to maximize asset value and ascertain claims.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract and negligence related to a billboard lease.

The parties had agreed to terminate the lease in 2009, but the defendants did not remove the sign until 2013.

The plaintiff claimed various damages, including lost revenue and property damage, but failed to provide sufficient evidence.

The court found that both parties contributed to the delay but held the defendants liable for the value of uncashed rent cheques tendered during the delay period.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $8,854.30.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, appealed his conviction for failing to stop at a red light under the Provincial Offences Act.

He argued his right to make full answer and defence was violated because the prosecutor did not advise him of his right to disclosure, and the Justice of the Peace failed to assist him.

The City conceded that the appellant was not adequately informed of his right to disclosure and that significant video evidence had been lost.

Based on these concessions, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.

The Court declined to rule on the broader constitutional and procedural issues regarding disclosure for unrepresented litigants, finding them moot.

The plaintiff, a senior staff accountant, sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental distress after her employment was terminated following a period of workplace conflict and medical leave.

The court found that the employer had acted professionally and in good faith throughout, dismissing the claims for bad faith, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' salary in lieu of notice.

Applying the principles from Sylvester, the court held that short-term disability benefits paid directly by the employer during the notice period should be deducted from the damages, but long-term disability benefits paid by a third-party insurer should not be deducted.

The appellant operated travel-related kiosks at a major airport and challenged municipal realty tax liability on the basis that its agreement with the airport authority created only a licence, not a tenancy, under the Assessment Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the issue was one of pure contractual interpretation and legal characterization, reviewable on a correctness standard, and that the agreement as a whole unambiguously created a landlord-tenant relationship.

The court further held that the appellant's leased premises did not qualify as "eligible property" under s. 331 of the Municipal Act, 2001 because the appellant could not bring the premises within any enumerated statutory category.

The appeal was dismissed with agreed costs.

The applicant, a self-represented taxi driver, was convicted of failing to stop at a red light and fined $350.

His appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice was dismissed.

He sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on three grounds: an unsworn interpreter, lack of disclosure, and the justice of the peace's failure to assist him as an unrepresented defendant.

The Court of Appeal refused leave on the interpreter issue but granted leave on the disclosure and duty to assist issues, finding conflicting authority on the obligations owed to self-represented defendants in provincial offences trials.

The appellants appealed a decision quashing a property assessment against the respondent for advertising displays at Pearson International Airport.

The lower court had found that the respondent was not an occupant and that the assessment was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent was an occupant under the Assessment Act as it had actual occupation, exclusive possession, value, and permanence.

The court also held that the doctrine of paramount occupancy did not apply, or alternatively, that the respondent was the paramount occupier.

Finally, the court found no evidence that the assessment corporation acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily.

The applicant, Clear Channel, held a non-exclusive licence to install and maintain advertising displays at Pearson Airport.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) assessed Clear Channel as a taxable tenant of the Crown under section 18(1) of the Assessment Act.

Clear Channel brought an application arguing it was a licensee, not a tenant.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) retained total control over the premises and paramount occupancy, while Clear Channel merely provided a service.

The court concluded Clear Channel was not a tenant and quashed the assessments.

In a receivership proceeding under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the receiver sought directions regarding pension-related claims asserted against the debtor’s estate and approval to make distributions to secured creditors.

The pension plan administrator argued that regulatory action could alter the wind‑up date of a pension plan and create larger priority claims, including claims under s. 81.6 of the BIA and a deemed trust under the Pension Benefits Act.

The court held that the receivership stay prevented attempts to change the pension plan wind‑up date and declined to lift the stay, finding that the regulator lacked statutory authority to revisit the final wind‑up order and that doing so would prejudice secured creditors.

The court also limited the potential pension priority claim to a holdback relating to the salaried plan’s normal costs and found that any deemed trust priority under the PPSA applied only to a minimal amount.

The receiver’s activities and fees were approved and distributions authorized subject to the limited holdback.

ERM brought motions to consolidate four related actions arising from environmental contamination and a remediation agreement, and to strike the property owners' claims for contribution, indemnity, and nuisance.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that the actions should be tried together to avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to separate counsel and to prevent circumvention of limitation periods.

The court also dismissed the motions to strike, holding that the claims for contribution and indemnity were not premature given ongoing Ministry of the Environment involvement, and that it was not plain and obvious the nuisance claims would fail.