Orestes Pasparakis

The appellant, an unsuccessful prospective purchaser of the debtor's assets, sought to appeal an order appointing an interim receiver and approving the sale of the debtor's assets to another party.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the appellant lacked standing.

The court reaffirmed that an unsuccessful bidder does not have a legal or proprietary right in the property being sold and therefore does not have a direct interest sufficient to challenge a sale approval order.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement fixing costs in favour of the successful respondent in the amount of $11,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The parties entered into a separation agreement in 1994.

The respondent's income increased dramatically starting in 1996, but he did not disclose this to the appellant.

The appellant sought retroactive child support.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no implicit duty to disclose in the agreement and no blameworthy conduct.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the trial judge erred under the new D.B.S. framework in finding no blameworthy conduct, her holistic consideration of all factors—including the children's needs being met, the appellant's delay, and the potential hardship to the respondent—justified denying the retroactive award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Jazz Air LP, appealed a costs award of $160,000 on a substantial indemnity basis following the dismissal of its motion for an interlocutory injunction against the respondents.

The appellant argued the amount was excessive for a one-day motion and that substantial indemnity was unwarranted.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in principle given the unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy, the tactical timing of the motion, and the reasonable expectation that the respondents would spare no expense to defend against an injunction that would have catastrophic consequences for their business.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a costs order of $160,000 on a substantial indemnity scale following the dismissal of its injunction motion.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision to award substantial indemnity costs without clear findings of reprehensible conduct, and questioning the overall reasonableness of the quantum awarded for 500 hours of preparation over four days.

The company TCT became insolvent and an interim receiver, KPMG, was appointed.

The order appointing KPMG stated it could not be considered a successor employer and prohibited proceedings against it without leave.

KPMG terminated unionized employees and sold assets to a new company, which hired some employees without union representation.

The union sought leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to bring a successor employer application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to determine successor employer status, which belongs exclusively to the labour board.

The Court also held that the traditional Mancini test applies to s. 215 leave applications, requiring only a prima facie case, and granted the union leave to proceed.

The parties were unable to agree on the form of the Order to implement the court's reasons for decision dated April 2, 2004.

The court resolved two issues of clarification regarding the interim receiver's protection from personal liability and the referral of the s. 215 BIA decision back to the bankruptcy judge.

The main issue in dispute was the status of paragraph 15 of the original ex parte order concerning the interim receiver's immunity and potential liability as a successor employer.

The court attached the form of order to be signed by the Registrar without providing further reasons.

The appellant leased truck trailers to a company that subsequently went bankrupt.

A priority dispute arose between the appellant and the bankrupt's secured creditor over the trailers.

The trailers were used in multiple jurisdictions but the debtor was located in Alberta.

The Court of Appeal held that although the lease was a 'true lease' not requiring registration under the Ontario PPSA, the choice of law provisions in s. 7(1) of the Ontario PPSA still applied.

Consequently, Alberta law governed the dispute.

Under the Alberta PPSA, the lease was deemed a security interest requiring registration, and because the appellant registered against the wrong entity, its interest was subordinate to the secured creditor's perfected security interest.

The appeal was dismissed.

The debtor company became insolvent and an interim receiver was appointed.

The receiver terminated all employees but continued operations to sell the business as a going concern.

The union sought to bring successor employer proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The bankruptcy judge denied leave under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while s. 47(2) of the BIA does not authorize a bankruptcy court to determine successor employer status, s. 215 gives the court jurisdiction to deny leave to proceed before the OLRB based on bankruptcy considerations.

However, the bankruptcy judge erred by effectively determining the successor employer issue himself.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the bankruptcy court.

The union brought a motion for leave to appeal an order that amended a receivership order to protect the receiver from successor employer status and denied the union leave to proceed against the receiver before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the legal issues regarding the relationship between bankruptcy courts and labour boards, and the status of a receiver as a successor employer, were significant to commercial practice and warranted consideration by the appellate court.