Michael Crampton

The plaintiff's action initially appeared before a judge for a summary judgment motion in the Central West Region.

The judge noted that the action fit within the definition of a class action currently being case managed in the Southwest Region, and initiated a motion to transfer the action to avoid inconsistent verdicts and promote litigation economy.

The Regional Senior Justice considered the relevant rules and statutory provisions, and ordered the proceeding transferred to the Southwest Region to be case managed with the class action, maintaining the temporary stay previously ordered.

The plaintiff, MDG Newmarket Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce minutes of settlement against the defendant, Pierre Pascal, related to a rental contract for HVAC equipment.

Mr. Pascal counterclaimed, alleging misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and statutory breaches, including under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

The court noted an ongoing class action against MDG involving similar contracts.

The court temporarily stayed MDG's action and referred the matter to the Regional Senior Judge in the Southwest Region to determine if it should be transferred or considered part of the class action, citing concerns about inconsistent findings and judicial efficiency.

Steve (Uziel) Igel sought leave to intervene as an added party in an action (the "Andrews Action") commenced by Jeffrey Feldberg against David Andrews and his companies.

The Andrews Action's allegations against Andrews are based on alleged misconduct attributed to Igel, which are also central to a separate, ongoing "Igel Action" between Igel and Feldberg.

Igel sought to intervene under Rule 13.01, arguing common questions of law/fact, reputational interest, and potential adverse effects from a judgment, particularly a pending Rule 21 motion to strike the Andrews Action as an abuse of process.

The court found Igel satisfied the threshold requirements for intervention.

The court granted Igel leave to intervene in the Rule 21 motion, finding he could make a useful contribution, but dismissed his request to be added as a full party to the entire Andrews Action as premature, subject to revisiting after the Rule 21 motion.

Feldberg also brought a successful motion to strike certain paragraphs and exhibits from an affidavit based on settlement privilege.

Costs were awarded.

The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful distraint under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff sought damages for relational economic loss, arguing it had a possessory or proprietary interest in restaurant equipment distrained by the defendant landlord from a previous tenant.

The court found that because the defendant had withheld consent to assign the lease to the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not establish a possessory or proprietary interest in the chattels.

The motion was allowed and the claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

During a case conference in a joint venture dispute, the parties agreed that the plaintiff's counsel was in a conflict of interest and should be removed as solicitor of record for a jointly-owned corporation in a related solicitor's negligence action.

The court granted the order removing counsel and directed that the corporation would have 30 days to retain new counsel or seek leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The court deferred the defendants' request for immediate production of the complete solicitor's file until new counsel is retained.

The Proposal Trustee brought a motion for court approval of the amended joint proposal of Artiva Inc. and Livewell Foods Canada Inc. under s. 58 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and a related plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The proposal was supported by the majority of creditors, but opposed by a dissenting creditor who sought an adjournment due to late delivery of proofs of claim.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the time to challenge claims for voting purposes had expired.

The court approved the proposal and arrangement, finding them viable, made in good faith, and likely to generate a superior recovery for creditors than bankruptcy.

The noteholders appealed the Proposal Trustee's disallowance of their unsecured claims in the BIA proposals of several subsidiary corporations.

The Trustee had determined that the subsidiaries' guarantees were limited to an initial US$3 million advance and did not cover a subsequent US$12 million advance, and that the initial advance had been fully satisfied by a property transfer.

The Superior Court upheld the Trustee's interpretation of the guarantees but found an error in the debt allocation, ruling that US$828,000 of the guaranteed debt remained outstanding and should be recognized as an unsecured claim.

This case conference order addresses procedural and factual disputes in an ongoing insolvency proceeding involving Eureka 93 Inc. and three related companies under the BIA.

The noteholders (Dominion Capital LLC) had postponed creditor votes on proposals, seeking further investigations and information regarding asset valuations and the validity of their claims.

The debtors challenged the noteholders' status as creditors for one proposal.

The court provided directions to resolve the gridlock, ordering the Proposal Trustee to assess and value the noteholders' proofs of claim, setting deadlines for examinations of witnesses, and mandating the completion of votes on the proposals.

The court emphasized the Trustee's role in validating claims and cautioned against allowing peripheral issues to unduly complicate the summary insolvency process.

The debtors, Eureka 93 Inc. and related companies, filed a notice of intention to make a proposal under the BIA.

Two motions were heard: an unopposed motion by the debtors for an interim arrangement order under the Canada Business Corporations Act, which was granted; and an opposed motion by the noteholders (Dominion Capital LLC) seeking an order for document production relevant to an appraisal, cross-examination of Seann Poli, and examination of a representative of the first mortgagee, all in advance of the creditors' meeting to vote on the proposal.

The court dismissed the noteholders' request for examinations as premature, noting that the BIA provides mechanisms for investigation after the trustee's report or by adjourning the creditors' meeting.

However, the court ordered the debtor's appraiser to disclose and produce source documents used for the land appraisals, but declined to order disclosure for a business valuation under the BIA.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was granted specific performance and an abatement of the purchase price, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court found that the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation and trial was egregious, including failing to respond to interlocutory steps, attempting to amend pleadings on the first day of trial, and calling witnesses to provide unpled and unpersuasive evidence.

As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $210,000 inclusive of HST.

The plaintiff brought an action for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for vacant commercial land, with an abatement of the purchase price due to the defendant's failure to install municipal services.

The defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim admitted the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance, but at trial, the defendant attempted to argue the agreement was null and void.

The court held the defendant to its pleadings, found the plaintiff entitled to specific performance, and granted an abatement of the purchase price based on the estimated cost for the plaintiff to independently service the lands.

The vendor of commercial condominium units sought a declaration that the purchaser had anticipatorily breached an agreement of purchase and sale and that the vendor was entitled to retain the deposit.

The application judge found that the agreement came to an end when both parties were unable to close on the appointed date and ordered the deposit returned.

On appeal, the vendor argued that the purchaser had anticipatorily repudiated the agreement and sought to hold the purchaser's signatory personally liable as a guarantor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the purchaser had anticipatorily repudiated the agreement, the vendor's insistence on strict performance on the scheduled date, combined with its own failure to be ready, willing and able to close on that date, resulted in the agreement terminating.

The court also rejected the personal guarantee claim against the signatory.

The defendant, 2088556 Ontario Inc., brought a motion on the second day of trial to amend its statement of defence, seeking to withdraw key admissions and eliminate its counterclaim.

The proposed amendment introduced a new defence asserting the agreement of purchase and sale had terminated.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to meet the three-part test for withdrawing admissions under Rule 51.05, particularly regarding inadvertence and the significant, non-compensable prejudice it would cause the plaintiff, M & M Homes Inc., who had relied on the original pleadings.

The defendant, 2088556 Ontario Inc., brought a second oral application for an adjournment of the trial, following the dismissal of a previous adjournment application.

The basis for the second request was a pending motion for leave to appeal the initial dismissal, which the defendant argued created uncertainty.

The court dismissed the application, affirming that the right to appeal interlocutory orders does not interrupt the course of litigation during trial.

The court emphasized that mid-trial rulings do not become final for appeal purposes until judgment is entered, and that allowing such appeals to halt proceedings would lead to scheduling chaos.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction and the granting of the defendant's motion to stay the action based on an arbitration clause, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant and IWS sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging the plaintiff made baseless claims of deceitful behaviour and brought a tactical motion.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the allegations did not rise to the necessary level.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing the defendant's costs at $35,000 and IWS's costs at $9,000, noting the motions were important and of more than average complexity.

The defendant landlord moved for security for costs against the plaintiff tenant under Rule 56.01(1)(d) and (e), alleging insufficient assets and a frivolous claim.

The plaintiff argued that its financial difficulties stemmed from the defendant's alleged breach of a lease amending agreement, which involved delayed renovations and illegal distress of chattels.

The court found the defendant met the low threshold for demonstrating insufficient assets but declined to order security for costs, exercising its discretion based on the principle that an order should not prevent a meritorious claim from proceeding, especially when the plaintiff's impecuniosity is allegedly caused by the defendant's actions.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Loan Away Inc. sought an interlocutory injunction against Western Life Assurance Company to compel payments and prevent termination of insurance policies, and also sought to amend its statement of claim to add IWS Creditor Group Inc. and consolidate arbitrations.

Western Life Assurance Company brought a cross-motion to stay the action based on an arbitration clause.

The court dismissed Loan Away's request for an interlocutory injunction due to lack of an undertaking as to damages and failure to meet the strong prima facie case and irreparable harm tests for a mandatory injunction.

The court granted Western's motion to stay the action and refer the issues to arbitration, including the arbitrator's jurisdiction over a permanent injunction.

Loan Away's request to consolidate arbitrations was denied due to lack of consent from all parties, and its motion to add IWS as a party was also denied as no tenable cause of action was pleaded against IWS.