Michael Hassell

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and bad faith after terminating a lease and selling its dry cleaning business back to the defendant for $35,000.

The plaintiff argued it had been deceived into relinquishing its right of first refusal under the lease because the defendant falsely represented an intention to operate the business personally, but then resold it shortly afterward to a third party for $225,000.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant misrepresented its intentions or breached a duty of good faith during negotiations.

Evidence from an independent purchaser supported the defendant’s explanation that the subsequent sale arose opportunistically after the lease ended.

Although the court commented that damages could have been approximately $175,000–$190,000 if liability were established, the claim was dismissed.

Secured creditors sought the appointment of a receiver over a debtor company pursuant to s. 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act following repeated loan defaults and concerns that assets might be removed from the premises.

Evidence indicated ongoing payment defaults and recent activity suggesting potential removal of items from the business location.

The respondent acknowledged default but requested a short period to obtain refinancing sufficient to satisfy secured creditors.

The court concluded that supervision was necessary to protect the debtor’s assets and the secured creditors’ interests.

An interim receiver with limited monitoring powers was appointed pending a further hearing on whether a full receivership should be ordered.

The moving party sought an order under Rules 15.03(4) and (5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure declaring that his former lawyers had no right to assert a lawyer’s possessory lien over documents belonging to him.

The law firm had represented the moving party in two civil actions and claimed unpaid legal fees exceeding $150,000, asserting a lien over litigation documents after being discharged without cause.

The court held that the law firm was entitled to assert the lien given the material unpaid balance and the circumstances of discharge.

However, the court noted that a substantial portion of the accounts may be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and reduced the potential exposure accordingly.

The motion was conditionally resolved by permitting release of the documents if the moving party granted a collateral mortgage as security for up to $75,000; otherwise the motion would be dismissed.