Sauliman et al v. Mielczarek, 2015 ONSC 6574

CITATION: Sauliman et al v. Mielczarek, 2015 ONSC 6574

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-14-126-ML

DATE: 20151023

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: DALIA SAULIMAN, AMEER SAULIMAN and LE ROYAL RESTO & LOUNGE INC., Moving Parties/Appellants

AND:

ALEKSANDRA MIELCZAREK, Respondent

BEFORE: MOLLOY, HAMBLY and HACKLAND JJ.

COUNSEL: Joseph W. Irving, for the Moving Parties/Appellants

Aleksandra Mielczarek, in person

HEARD: October 22, 2015 in Brampton

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is an appeal from an order of Price J. dated December 4, 2014 in which he allowed the respondent’s motion to appoint a supervisor/receiver for a restaurant business operated by the appellants. He also added the current appellants as respondents in the proceeding (court file no. CV-13-1432-00 Brampton). Price J. seized himself of the proceeding and his order contemplated further directions being sought from him in respect of the receivership or the progress of the proceeding in general.

[2] By order dated May 1, 2015 Fragomeni J. stayed Price J.’s order until the disposition of this appeal and imposed certain requirements on the appellants to preserve the assets of the business.

[3] On this appeal the appellants argue that there was no reasonable basis to justify the imposition of a receivership and they challenged the addition of the current appellants as parties to the application.

[4] We are of the view that Price J. had a reasonable basis to conclude that a supervisor should be appointed to preserve and render a valuation of the business, particularly in view of the unanswered allegations of fraud and apparent contravention of an earlier order of Miller J. in oppression proceedings. Further, on the material available to the motion judge, the appellants were properly made parties to the application.

[5] As noted, Price J. remains seized of this matter. Due to the passage of time since his original order and issues which have arisen concerning the operation and funding of the receivership, which is not yet in place, the parties may wish to seek directions from Price J. in order that the receiver’s mandate and funding be clarified. In addition, the respondents are pursuing another closely related application pertaining to this restaurant business which may require the court’s further direction.

[6] This appeal is dismissed. There will be no costs of the appeal.

MOLLOY J.

HAMBLY J.

HACKLAND J.

Date: October 23, 2015