M. Greenglass

The plaintiff brought an unsuccessful motion to examine non-parties for discovery.

The non-parties sought substantial indemnity costs for successfully resisting the motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $52,126.09, finding that the plaintiff's unyielding pursuit of the non-parties over a low-value issue was disproportionate and unnecessary.

The court held that forcing non-parties to incur significant legal costs to defend their private financial affairs justifies substantial indemnity costs in some cases, and that a total disregard for proportionality can be regarded as reprehensible conduct.

The court held a case conference to schedule a summary judgment motion for this action and 13 related actions.

A timetable was established for the delivery of responding materials, reply materials, and the completion of cross-examinations, with the motion scheduled for a full day hearing.

In receivership proceedings brought in aid of execution against a judgment debtor, the court considered a motion by the court-appointed receiver for directions regarding enforcement steps and the disposition of certain assets.

The receiver sought approval to sell the debtor’s interest in a jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act, clarification regarding ownership of a cottage property, compliance with outstanding information requests, and approval of the receiver’s reports.

The court held that the spouse opposing sale failed to demonstrate circumstances of oppression, malice, or vexatious intent that would justify refusing the statutory right to partition or sale.

The court ordered the sale of the debtor’s interest in the matrimonial home, directed the parties to provide requested information to the receiver, scheduled a hearing regarding ownership of the cottage and related indebtedness issues, and approved the receiver’s reports.

Creditors of an undischarged bankrupt commenced an action under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act challenging transactions allegedly intended to defeat creditors, including the redemption of special shares and alleged diversion of income.

Certain defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing under the existing s. 38 order and that the limitation period had expired.

The court held that any procedural irregularity in commencing the claim without a specific s. 38 authorization could be cured nunc pro tunc and that the limitation period had not expired because the material facts were discovered later.

The court further found that the “imputed income” allegations raised genuine issues requiring credibility assessments that could not be resolved on summary judgment.

A bank sought summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee provided by a spouse of the principal of a borrowing company.

The guarantor cross‑moved for summary judgment declaring the guarantee unenforceable after the lender repeatedly replaced and expanded loan agreements without notifying or obtaining consent from the guarantor.

The court held that the successive loan agreements materially altered the risk assumed under the guarantee and that the guarantor, as an accommodation surety, was entitled to notice and consent for such variations.

Because the lender failed to obtain a fresh guarantee or consent when the loan facility increased and prior agreements were terminated and replaced, the guarantee was unenforceable.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the guarantor and the lender’s motion against her was dismissed.