Matthew Halpin

The defendants brought a motion for an order that the same judge hear the third party proceeding as the main action, which was dismissed.

The third party sought costs of the motion.

The court found that costs should follow the event but that the $14,000 claimed was disproportionate for a procedural motion that could have been resolved at a case conference.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order that their third-party action against the accountants be tried by the same judge as the main action, immediately following the main trial.

A previous order had already determined that the main action and third-party action would be tried separately.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that motion judges are not responsible for judicial assignments and that the motion was a collateral attack on the previous ruling.

The defendants remain at liberty to request an immediate trial date and ask the Regional Senior Judge to assign the same judge through the normal scheduling process.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully defending the defendants' motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff claimed between $45,330 and $75,550, representing 161 hours of work by two senior counsel.

The defendants argued the claim was unreasonable and suggested partial indemnity costs of $19,763.40.

The court agreed the plaintiff's claimed hours were excessive and lacked detailed dockets.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of $23,947.10, inclusive of disbursements and HST, matching the defendants' suggested figure.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of $400,000 advanced to the defendant, and to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for $813,000.

The court granted summary judgment for the $400,000 as the defendant admitted receiving the funds and owing the debt.

However, the court refused to dismiss the counterclaim, finding that the lack of written agreements and contradictory evidence regarding the defendant's remuneration and the share purchase created a genuine issue for trial.

The court stayed the enforcement of the $400,000 judgment pending the outcome of the counterclaim trial, as the defendant may be entitled to an equitable set-off.

Applicants sought an initial order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to obtain court protection while restructuring a national not‑for‑profit healthcare organization suffering significant liquidity shortfalls.

The court found the applicants insolvent and satisfied that the statutory requirements for CCAA protection were met.

The court granted a stay of proceedings, approved a modified cash management system, appointed a monitor and chief restructuring officer, and approved administration and directors’ charges and a key employee retention plan.

The court also appointed a receiver over certain intellectual property and goodwill to enable terminated employees to access benefits under the Wage Earner Protection Program Act.

A comeback hearing was scheduled to permit creditors to raise concerns.