Oren Haim Chaimovitch

The plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction against the defendants.

Before the hearing, two defendants were placed into bankruptcy by a separate creditor.

The bankrupt defendants appealed the bankruptcy orders, arguing the appeal automatically stayed the bankruptcy.

The court held that appeals from an Associate Justice's bankruptcy order lie to a Superior Court judge under s. 192(4) of the BIA, which does not trigger an automatic stay under s. 195.

Consequently, the action and Mareva injunction application were stayed against the bankrupt defendants, and a new timetable was set for the remaining defendants.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim in an action by the plaintiff bank to enforce loan agreements.

The proposed amendments sought to plead that all defendants suffered damages, add a claim for the tort of deceit, and expand pleadings regarding breach of honesty and good faith.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendments were statute-barred, an abuse of process, and untenable at law.

The court granted leave for all amendments, finding they either particularized existing claims or were based on newly discovered facts with a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The defendants were ordered to pay $1,050 plus HST for the costs of the plaintiff preparing an amended reply.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that success on both the appeal and cross-appeal was divided, and therefore ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The appellant Bank appealed a summary judgment finding it negligently breached its contract with the respondents regarding a Canada Small Business Financing Loan and a HELOC.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the motions judge erred by treating all respondents as one entity when the loan agreement was only with the corporate respondent, 1633092 Ontario Ltd. The Court varied the judgment to reflect that the Bank only breached its contract with the corporate respondent.

The Court dismissed the Bank's request for immediate judgment on the HELOC, referring the issue of set-off and the respondents' counterclaims to trial due to the pitfalls of partial summary judgment.

The appellants, Pamella and Gregory Radwan, appealed a summary judgment granted to The Energy Credit Union Limited concerning a defaulted "on demand" mortgage.

The Radwans argued the motion judge failed to address their evidence regarding standard charge terms, Pamella Radwan's sophistication, and issues of credibility, and that the reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's findings that the Radwans signed a valid "on demand" agreement, benefited from the funds, and defaulted.

The court affirmed that the lender was not obligated to insist on independent legal advice and that the reasons adequately explained the decision.

The Bank of Nova Scotia brought a motion for summary judgment against 1934047 Ontario Inc. and Ogieriakhi Omozusi for outstanding debts under an overdraft facility, a term loan, and a credit line, all of which were in default.

Omozusi had also guaranteed the corporation's debts.

The defendants acknowledged the indebtedness and default but sought a stay of enforcement and leave to pay at a negotiated rate, and also sought to amend their statement of defence to include a counterclaim for business interruption losses.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, affirming the Bank's contractual right to demand full repayment.

The proposed counterclaim was deemed without merit and leave to amend was denied.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the Bank for the full amounts owing plus interest.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against guarantors of a corporate loan following default under a small business term loan agreement.

The responding guarantors argued they believed each was liable only for one-quarter of the guaranteed amount and claimed they had not received independent legal advice before signing the guarantees.

The court held that absent fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, or a valid non est factum defence, the bank had no obligation to ensure the guarantors obtained independent legal advice.

The court further found that the relationship between the bank and the guarantors was purely commercial and did not give rise to any duty of care.

Because the guarantees contained entire agreement clauses and the alleged misunderstanding did not render the documents fundamentally different from what was signed, the defences failed and summary judgment was granted.

The appellant company appealed a summary judgment in favour of the respondent bank for an undisputed debt amount.

The appellant argued that the respondent had orally agreed to change the loan agreement so it was no longer payable on demand.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion that this argument lacked an air of reality and was not supported by the written agreement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant property owner appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay a real estate commission to the respondent realtor.

The owner had leased a unit to an existing tenant in the plaza shortly after the listing agreement expired, without notifying the realtor of the tenant's interest during the currency of the agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the owner breached the listing agreement by failing to refer the tenant's inquiry to the realtor, and that the owner could not rely on its own breach to avoid paying the commission.