Michael Crampton

The Receiver brought a motion to approve a sale transaction arising from a court-ordered sale process.

The respondent debtors brought a competing motion seeking to redeem the assigned debt and discharge the Receiver.

The debtors waited until after the sale process was completed and a successful bidder chosen before seeking to redeem.

The court found that allowing redemption at this late stage would undermine the integrity of the receivership process, noting the debtors failed to provide unconditional proof of funds.

The debtors' motion to redeem was dismissed, and the Receiver's proposed transaction was approved.

The plaintiff law firm obtained an ex parte order for a writ of possession over a property to enforce a guarantee for unpaid legal fees.

The guarantor, a non-party to the original action, moved to set aside the order on the basis that the law firm failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, specifically an outstanding stayed appeal and the debtor's bankruptcy, which were relevant to the escrow conditions of the consent.

The court found that the law firm did not scrupulously disclose all relevant facts to the associate judge.

The motion to set aside the writ of possession was granted, and the law firm's cross-motion to sell the property was dismissed without prejudice.

The defendants, a father and his common-law partner, brought motions to set aside an ex parte order granting the plaintiff son leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against their property, and to discharge the CPL.

The father also sought leave to register a CPL against a property he had previously transferred to the son.

The court set aside the ex parte order and discharged the CPL on the defendants' property, finding the son failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts and had no triable claim to an interest in the land.

The court granted the father leave to register a CPL against the son's property, finding a triable issue of a resulting trust arising from the gratuitous transfer.

The plaintiff sought an extension of the set down deadline and directions on scheduling a motion to compel the defendant to produce additional documents, arguing these were required by a prior production order.

The court found the plaintiff's motion was out of time, as the parties had agreed to a timetable for all pre-trial motions, and the plaintiff had not acted within those deadlines.

The court emphasized the importance of case management and procedural fairness, but held that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to bring the motion and declined to grant leave for it to proceed.

The court was asked to settle the wording of a formal order after the associate judge who made the underlying discovery ruling had retired.

The dispute arose because the parties’ previously agreed draft order did not match the wording of the original reasons, and the registrar refused to sign it.

The court held that in settling the order, it could not revisit the merits, infer a different intention, or implement the parties’ own understanding of what had been meant; it had to ensure the order tracked the reasons as written.

The court therefore signed the plaintiff’s revised draft order with some clarifying amendments and made no order as to costs of the settling process.

The decision addresses two competing motions for the appointment of representative counsel for investors in a receivership proceeding involving Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court reviews the procedural background, the need for representative counsel, and the competing proposals from Aird & Berlis LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

The court ultimately appoints Aird & Berlis LLP as representative counsel, finding their approach and fee structure preferable for efficiency, transparency, and certainty.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of a commercial real estate transaction that failed to close in April 2020, arguing that pandemic-related financing delays prevented closing and that the vendor acted unreasonably in refusing a further extension.

The court found the vendor tendered on closing and was ready, willing, and able to complete the transaction, while the purchaser lacked funds and had only conditional financing that was not available on the closing date.

The court held that COVID-19 did not create a free-standing legal excuse for contractual non-performance and distinguished authorities where pandemic conditions formed only part of the factual matrix or where the opposing party was not ready to close.

The action for specific performance was dismissed, and the vendor's counterclaim for a declaration of forfeiture of the $200,000 deposits was granted.

Relief from forfeiture was refused.

This is a costs endorsement following an unsuccessful application by the applicants.

The respondents, Nick Giannopoulos and Panagiota Papastefanou, were entirely successful.

Nick Giannopoulos was awarded partial indemnity costs from the applicants, with the estate indemnifying the remainder of his costs as he was an estate trustee upholding the will.

Panagiota Papastefanou was awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the applicants' reprehensible litigation conduct, including character vilification and publicizing privileged communications.

The Children's Lawyer, representing minor respondents, was awarded full indemnity costs from the estate, reflecting a fair sharing of necessary costs for protecting the children's interests.

The applicants, adult siblings, sought a declaration that their late father lacked capacity or was unduly influenced when he executed a new will in 2021 that favoured their brother.

They brought a motion for directions and production of the deceased's medical, legal, and financial records.

Applying the minimal evidentiary threshold from Neuberger v. York, the court found that the applicants failed to adduce credible evidence of incapacity or undue influence.

The court noted that the applicants' evidence consisted largely of conjecture, cherry-picked medical records, and unsupported allegations against the father's caregiver.

The motion and application for directions were dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision where Mohammad Hamed Yousufzay was successful in his application and Mohammad Ali Eksir's application was dismissed.

Yousufzay sought full indemnity costs, while Eksir argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found Yousufzay entitled to costs and awarded them on a substantial indemnity basis due to Eksir's unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty and adverse credibility findings against him.

The court declined full indemnity costs, finding the case did not feature grave misconduct, and awarded $170,000.00 in all-inclusive substantial indemnity costs to Yousufzay.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant, Assignment Credit Corp., was ordered to pay costs to several respondents (MCAP Financial Corporation, Dorr Capital Corporation, and Cherniak Law Professional Corporation).

The court rejected the appellant's argument that prior costs agreements should stand, as they were made before the appellant's non-disclosure of a material fact (that the Mesbur Judgment was obtained on consent) was revealed.

This non-disclosure, which impacted the second issue of the appeal, justified an elevated costs award on a solicitor-client basis for the affected respondents.

The 167 respondents were denied costs due to their own failure to disclose the consent judgment and their underlying financial obligations.

This case involved cross-applications between two shareholders/directors of a closely held corporation, United Investment.

Mohammad Ali Eksir sought a declaration of oppression under section 248 of the OBCA and an order to wind up the corporation, alleging self-dealing and financial misconduct by Mohammad Hamed Yousufzay.

Yousufzay sought an order for a shareholder meeting and production of financial records.

The court dismissed Eksir's oppression application, finding he failed to prove his reasonable expectations were violated, as he was aware of and implicitly approved the impugned transactions (shareholder loans, donations, home renovation expenses, snow clearing).

The court also dismissed the request for winding up, stating it was not a just and equitable remedy given the lack of serious harm and the availability of less drastic remedies.

Yousufzay's application for a shareholder meeting with varied quorum requirements under section 106 of the OBCA was granted to allow for the appointment of directors and address corporate governance issues.

This appeal concerned the priority of various creditors in a garnishment hearing involving payments owed by the City of St. Catharines and Region of Niagara to 1671379 Ontario Inc. under a Brownfield Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program Agreement (BTIG).

The primary dispute was between MCAP Financial Corporation, holding a perfected General Security Agreement (GSA), and Assignment Credit Corp. (ACC), asserting priority based on an assigned consent judgment (Mesbur Judgment).

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that MCAP's perfected GSA had priority for its shortfall judgment over ACC's claim, finding no inconsistency in MCAP's position.

However, the court remitted the issue of priorities among ACC and other unsecured judgment creditors to the motion judge, as it was revealed post-hearing that the Mesbur Judgment was a consent judgment, a fact not disclosed to the motion judge or other creditors, raising new legal arguments regarding the Personal Property Security Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act.

This is an appeal from an order granting the respondent leave to amend his Answer seven years after filing, to advance constructive and resulting trust claims in three properties purchased during the marriage and held in the appellant’s name, but sold before the motion for leave to amend.

The appellant argued prejudice due to timing, that claims were statute-barred, and lack of jurisdiction over foreign land.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision that leave to amend was proper, the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied to the trust claims even after property sale, and the in rem jurisdiction issue was not relevant to the leave to amend motion.

The moving defendants sought to strike the plaintiff's Superior Court action as an abuse of process.

The defendants had previously commenced 67 separate Small Claims Court actions against the plaintiff regarding HVAC rental contracts.

The plaintiff subsequently commenced this Superior Court action against the defendants, seeking damages for breach of contract and defamation, and seeking to traverse or stay the Small Claims Court actions.

The court found that the Superior Court action was duplicative of the plaintiff's defences in the Small Claims Court actions and sought to circumvent the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

The court concluded it would be an abuse of process to permit the Superior Court action to proceed while the Small Claims Court actions were pending, and ordered the action stayed.

The appellant, 2088556 Ontario Inc., appealed a trial judgment that ordered specific performance and an abatement in favour of the respondent, M & M Homes Inc., regarding an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for commercial land.

The appellant had failed to provide required services by a specified deadline, leading to the respondent suing for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision on specific performance, the abatement, the discretionary dismissal of the appellant's motion to amend pleadings, and rejecting claims of bias and the appeal of full indemnity costs.

Various creditors of 1671379 Ontario Inc. and Manuel Elkind brought motions to determine priority status for garnishment payments owed by the City of St. Catharines and Region of Niagara under a Brownfield Tax Increment Based Incentive Grant Program Agreement (BTIG).

The primary dispute was between MCAP Financial Corporation, which held a registered and perfected security interest under the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA), and Assignment Credit Corp. (ACC), which claimed priority based on an assignment of a prior judgment.

The court found that MCAP's security interest, including the proceeds of the BTIG, maintained its priority status despite being reduced to a shortfall judgment.

The court dismissed ACC's claim for priority, finding that its assigned interest was subject to MCAP's prior perfected security and that ACC's claim should be limited to $400,000 as per a "Side Deal" in a previous endorsement.

The moving party defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide particulars of its allegations of misrepresentation and intent, and to produce documents for inspection.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants already had the information and documents.

The court granted the motion in part, finding that the statement of claim did not satisfy the elevated level of particularity required under Rule 25.06(8) for pleadings of misrepresentation.

The court ordered the plaintiff to provide certain particulars and to produce the referenced documents for inspection.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to set a timetable for a potential motion to remove their counsel, finding it premature.

The court also granted the plaintiff's motion to validate service on one of the defendants.

The appellant, 2460907 Ontario Inc., appealed an order striking its claim for pure economic loss against the respondent, 1521476 Ontario Inc. The claim arose from the respondent's re-entry of premises leased to a third party, 2456787 Ontario Inc., where the appellant intended to operate a restaurant.

The appellant claimed a possessory or proprietary interest in the premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant lacked such an interest because the respondent had not consented to an assignment of the lease.

Consequently, no duty of care could arise to support a claim for pure economic loss.

The court distinguished the case from relational economic loss precedents due to the absence of any direct relationship between the appellant and respondent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Loan Away Inc. appealed a motion judge's order that stayed its application against Facebook, Inc. The original application sought injunctive relief and damages after Facebook suspended Loan Away's advertising.

The stay was granted based on a forum selection clause in Facebook's Terms of Service, which mandated disputes be resolved in California under California law.

Loan Away also challenged the motion judge's refusal to adjourn the stay motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the motion judge properly exercised discretion in denying the adjournment and correctly applied the two-step test for enforcing forum selection clauses in a commercial context, finding Loan Away failed to demonstrate "strong cause" to override the clause.