Michael Brzezinski

The moving parties sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent from selling securities in a real estate development project pursuant to a put option agreement, or alternatively, an order freezing the sale proceeds under Rule 45.02.

The court found that while the moving parties might suffer irreparable harm if the proceeds were repatriated out of Canada, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had a valid third-party offer and faced an impending mortgage expiry.

The court also held that the sale proceeds did not constitute a specific fund under Rule 45.02 as the moving parties' claim was essentially for damages.

The motion was dismissed, with leave to renew if the current sale transaction failed to close.

The Court-Appointed Receiver brought an unopposed motion to approve the sale of certain real estate assets.

The court approved the sale but issued reasons criticizing the Receiver's procedural conduct, specifically the late service of the motion record, late filing with the court, and excessive unilateral sealing of evidence.

The court emphasized the importance of the open court principle and the need to provide stakeholders with sufficient notice and information to make informed decisions.

The court refused to seal outdated appraisals and only temporarily sealed the summary of prior offers and the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award issued by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chambers of Commerce against the respondent.

The respondent opposed enforcement, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish any of the enumerated grounds under the Model Law to refuse enforcement, noting the powerful presumption that the arbitral tribunal acted within its jurisdiction.

The application was granted and the award was recognized and enforced.

The applicant landlord brought a motion for leave to place its application on the trial list or restore it, to avoid administrative dismissal for delay after five years.

The underlying dispute involved a commercial lease.

The Master found that the application, which had been converted into a trial of issues, should not be mechanically subjected to the same dismissal rules as an ordinary action.

Applying the principles from Carioca's, the Master granted the motion to allow the application to proceed, subject to the applicant paying a previous costs award and the parties scheduling a hearing date.

The applicants, a group of mortgage investors, applied to appoint a receiver over the property of the respondent, a not-for-profit corporation operating a church and school, due to an outstanding loan balance of approximately $11.5 million.

The respondent had previously commenced an action against the applicants alleging conspiracy and seeking restitution.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was not just and convenient to appoint a receiver because the respondent raised triable issues, the property value greatly exceeded the debt, and a receivership would effectively end the ongoing litigation and negatively impact the church and school.