DATE: 20020402
DOCKET: C36447
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
IN THE MATTER OF BANKRUPTCY OF MacLEAN GROUP INC. of the City of Woodstock, Province of Ontario
BEFORE:
McMURTRY C.J.O., WEILER and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Melvyn L. Solmon, for the appellants David and Laura Robichaud
Harvey G. Chaiton and Benjamin Frydenberg for the respondent, Pricewaterhouse Coopers Inc. (the trustee in bankruptcy)
James R. Fisher for the respondent, Stanfield’s Limited
HEARD:
March 21, 2002
On appeal from the orders of Justice Edward R. Browne dated May 30, 2001.
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] This is an appeal from an order settling the order of May 2, 2001 approving the sale to Stanfield’s Limited of the licencee’s interest under a trademark licence agreement and the shares of Harvey Woods Inc. as well as the vesting order dated May 30, 2001, vesting the assets that were sold to Stanfield’s Limited. In addition, the appellant appeals the dismissal of his cross-motion requesting an adjournment and various forms of relief.
[2] The appellant’s main submission is that Browne J. ought not to have settled the order approving the sale or made a vesting order prior to the determination of the question of entitlement to the interest in the licence agreement. The issue of entitlement is, in fact, the subject of other litigation and is still not resolved.
[3] The order approving the sale was unopposed and it was not appealed. There was some evidence that the value of the licence agreement was deteriorating. In these circumstances, and having regard to Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Browne J. had the jurisdiction to order the sale of the bankrupt’s assets prior to a determination of entitlement respecting the shares and licence agreement and did not err in exercising his discretion to do so.
[4] The appellant’s cross-motion seeking an adjournment to have a forensics expert examine the statement of affairs and other relief was properly dismissed. That relief could be relevant to the issue of entitlement which is the subject of the other pending litigation but was not essential to the determination of the matters before Browne J.
[5] We would not give effect to any of the appellant’s other submissions.
[6] The appeal is therefore dismissed. In order to comply with the rule that now requires this court to fix costs, the respondent is requested to file a bill of costs with the court in the appropriate form. The appellant may make submissions in writing thereon within 10 days after filing and the respondent may reply within 10 days thereafter.
Signed: “R.R. McMurtry C.J.O.” “K.M. Weiler J.A.” “Robt. P. Armstrong J.A.”