Michael C. Ly

The Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation (appellant) appealed the dismissal of its bankruptcy application against the Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto (respondent).

The appellant had donated over $19 million to a Donor Advised Fund (DAF) with the respondent, which it considered an irrevocable gift.

After the founder's death, his executor sought to direct the remaining DAF funds to specific charities, which the respondent did not follow.

The appellant initiated bankruptcy proceedings, alleging the respondent ceased to meet liabilities.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding no debt, no act of bankruptcy, and no special circumstances for a single-creditor application, and that the application was an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or errors of law, and affirmed the elevated costs award due to the abuse of process.

The plaintiff subcontractor failed to preserve and perfect a construction lien against the owner's property.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against the owner.

The owner brought a cross-motion to strike the claim against it under Rule 21.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted the owner's motion to strike, holding that the Construction Act is a complete code and a subcontractor who fails to preserve its lien rights has no equitable recourse against the owner.

The Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto (Foundation) moved to dismiss or stay a bankruptcy application brought by The Joseph Lebovic Charitable Foundation (JLCF).

JLCF alleged the Foundation was indebted to it for over $15 million from a Donor Advised Fund (DAF) and had failed to meet its liabilities.

The court found no debtor/creditor relationship, as the funds were irrevocable gifts, not debts.

It also found no evidence the Foundation was unable to pay its debts, noting its excellent financial health.

The court determined that no act of bankruptcy occurred and that the JLCF's application, brought as a single creditor, lacked special circumstances.

The court further found the bankruptcy application to be an abuse of process, brought for the collateral purpose of pressuring the Foundation to distribute funds, rather than for a legitimate bankruptcy purpose.

The Foundation's motion to dismiss was granted, and the bankruptcy application was dismissed.

This case involved four consolidated applications concerning arbitrations over construction defects at two hospitals.

PCL Constructors Canada Inc. challenged the arbitrators' jurisdiction, arguing non-compliance with procedural prerequisites and a limited scope of the arbitrators' power to award remedies.

Johnson Controls Canada LP sought declaratory relief regarding the nature of a contractual "Reconsideration Right" of the arbitrators' decisions, specifically whether it entailed a de novo hearing or an appeal.

The court dismissed all four applications, upholding the arbitrators' jurisdiction and declining to rule on the hypothetical future reconsideration right, stating the issue had not yet crystallized.

This case involved four consolidated applications concerning arbitrations over construction defects at two hospitals.

PCL Constructors Canada Inc. challenged the arbitrators' jurisdiction, arguing non-compliance with procedural prerequisites and a limited scope of the arbitrators' power to award remedies.

Johnson Controls Canada LP sought declaratory relief regarding the nature of a contractual "Reconsideration Right" of the arbitrators' decisions, specifically whether it entailed a de novo hearing or an appeal.

The court dismissed all four applications, upholding the arbitrators' jurisdiction and declining to rule on the hypothetical future reconsideration right, stating the issue had not yet crystallized.

The defendants were charged with operating and permitting the operation of a commercial motor vehicle with brakes not maintained in good working order on the Queen Elizabeth Way highway, contrary to section 64(7) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution's case relied on evidence of a broken brake assembly and out-of-adjustment push rods discovered during a Level 1 inspection.

The defendant driver testified that he conducted a thorough pre-trip inspection each morning, found no defects, and that the truck stopped without incident.

The court found that while the actus reus was established, the prosecution failed to prove the defendant's liability beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court determined that the defendant exercised due diligence in his inspection obligations and that there was insufficient evidence of a noticeable defect that should have been detected.

Additionally, the prosecution failed to establish vehicle ownership for the corporate defendant due to the absence of a certified Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration Certificate.

Both charges were dismissed.