Osborne

The appellant pled guilty to defrauding her employer of over $210,000 through fraudulent schemes and forgeries over several years.

She appealed her sentence of two years less a day, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's emphasis on the appellant's significant criminal record for similar offences and the need for specific and general deterrence, despite her guilty plea and full restitution.

The borrowers brought a motion within a receivership proceeding to discharge a mortgage on their residential property.

They had paid the mortgage in full to the mortgage broker, First Swiss, who had assigned the mortgage to Olympia Trust Company as a bare trustee for investors.

First Swiss misappropriated the funds and failed to remit them to Olympia.

The court found that First Swiss had actual and apparent authority to act as the agent for Olympia and the beneficial owner, Loucks.

The motion was granted, the mortgage was ordered discharged, and costs were awarded to the borrowers.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants sought a Funding Order to compel Securitization Parties and other secured lenders to fund a $40 million wind-down of the remaining entities.

The court dismissed the motion for the Funding Order, finding that section 11.01(b) of the CCAA expressly prohibits orders requiring the further advance of money or credit.

Consequently, the court also declined to approve a Key Employee Retention Plan, as it was dependent on the unavailable funding.

The court did, however, grant a temporary sealing order for the KERP details and extended the stay of proceedings to November 29, 2024.

The plaintiff in a complex family trust dispute brought motions on the eve of trial for further documentary production, further examinations for discovery, and leave to amend her Statement of Claim.

The motions sought to introduce new allegations that the defendants covered up and settled claims of sexual misconduct against the family patriarch, Frank Stronach.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no evidence that the requested documents existed, that the new allegations were irrelevant to the pleaded claims of corporate mismanagement, and that amending the pleadings three weeks before a scheduled seven-week trial would cause non-compensable prejudice and delay.

The appellant school boards appealed an arbitral award that dismissed their claim for a proportionate share of the respondent insurance exchange's Guarantee Fund upon terminating their memberships.

The court upheld the arbitrator's interpretation of the Reciprocal Agreement, finding that section 7 clearly extinguished a departing subscriber's rights to the fund.

The court also rejected the argument that an implied trust existed outside the contract.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a family-owned commercial real estate corporation, brought an oppression application against the majority shareholder and the corporation.

The applicant alleged oppression regarding the provision of financial information, the triggering of a shotgun buy-sell clause while the application was pending, and improper disbursements made to the majority shareholder.

The court found no oppression regarding the information provision or the shotgun clause, concluding the applicant was not entitled to an additional sum for her shares beyond the designated price.

However, the court found the majority shareholder's receipt of improper disbursements was oppressive and ordered an equalization payment of $154,717 to the applicant.

The applicant creditor brought a bankruptcy application against the respondent debtor, alleging an unpaid debt of approximately $7.9 million USD for LED light bulbs supplied under a distribution agreement.

The debtor disputed the application and sought a stay, arguing it had a bona fide counterclaim for damages resulting from the applicant allegedly supplying patent-infringing goods.

The court found that the debt was clearly established and that the debtor had committed an act of bankruptcy by ceasing to meet its liabilities generally.

The court dismissed the debtor's motion for a stay, finding the counterclaim lacked merit and was not bona fide, and granted the bankruptcy order.

During a complex commercial trial involving the auction of wireless spectrum licences, the plaintiffs challenged the defendant's assertion of solicitor-client privilege over redacted portions of nine documents.

The defendant argued the challenge required leave under Rule 48.04 as the action had been set down for trial.

The court held that a trial judge has broad discretion to order production of non-privileged documents at any time under Rule 30.04(5) without leave, but would have granted leave in the interests of justice regardless.

After inspecting the unredacted documents, the court found that while some redactions properly protected legal advice, others merely reflected policy discussions or operational decisions that referenced legal risks, which do not attract privilege.

The defendant was ordered to produce the improperly redacted portions.

The Applicants in a CCAA proceeding moved for a reverse vesting order to approve a transaction with a purchaser related to a secured creditor, Marzilli.

The transaction would vest out the first-ranking security interest of another creditor, 212, and transfer its debt to a residual entity with no assets. 212 opposed the motion, arguing its debt assumption was part of the stalking horse bid that set the floor for the sales process.

The court applied the Third Eye and Harte Gold factors, finding that 212 had not consented to the vesting out of its interest and that the equities favoured 212.

The court dismissed the motion for the reverse vesting order, concluding it was not equitable to extinguish 212's first-ranking security interest under the circumstances.

The moving parties sought advice and directions regarding a previous order that set aside a corporate reorganization for breaching a share pledge agreement.

The responding parties argued the previous order did not apply to a specific entity, Hay Bay Solar LP, because it was not explicitly named.

The court interpreted the previous order broadly, finding that the reorganization was a single integrated transaction and the order set it aside in its entirety, including Hay Bay.

The court also found that issue estoppel would prevent relitigating the ownership of Hay Bay.

The applicants, comprising a wholesale fuel supplier servicing First Nations communities, sought initial protection under the CCAA due to a looming liquidity crisis precipitated by alleged executive misconduct and missing financial records.

The court granted the initial order, including a stay of proceedings extending to regulatory authorities to prevent the revocation of essential fuel licenses.

The court also appointed KPMG as Monitor with enhanced investigatory powers, approved administration and D&O charges, authorized payment of critical pre-filing expenses, and granted a sealing order over a confidential affidavit to respect comity with a foreign court order.

The Court-appointed Receiver sought approval of a lien claim settlement, administrative expenses, its fees, and directions regarding the mortgagee's claim for three months' bonus interest upon default.

The Court approved the settlement, expenses, and fees.

However, the Court directed the Receiver to reject the mortgagee's claim for bonus interest, finding that the mortgage provision violated section 8 of the Interest Act by imposing a higher charge on arrears.

The Court also held that section 17 of the Mortgages Act does not apply to distributions by a court-appointed receiver.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the production of financial records relating to mortgages held by the defendants in trust for the plaintiffs, alleging a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate funds.

The defendants argued that the documents should be produced in the ordinary course of litigation.

The court held that beneficiaries of a trust have a proprietary right to records relevant to an accounting for the trust property, separate from the ordinary rules of discovery, and ordered the defendants to produce the requested documents or confirm their non-existence.

The applicant brought a motion for an interim order under section 192(4) of the Canada Business Corporations Act to call a special meeting of shareholders.

The meeting was to consider a plan of arrangement whereby the respondent would acquire all common shares of the applicant.

The court found the applicant was acting in good faith and met the statutory requirements.

The interim order was granted, authorizing the meeting and establishing notice and voting mechanics.

The moving party, an insolvent cannabis producer, brought an unopposed motion for approval of a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, approval of Articles of Reorganization, and an order relieving it from the requirement to hold an annual general meeting before dissolving.

The Proposal contemplated paying remaining unsecured creditors, distributing its 10% equity interest in a successor entity to eligible shareholders, and transferring residual assets to satisfy remaining liabilities.

The court found the Proposal reasonable, calculated to benefit the general body of creditors, and made in good faith.

The court also granted relief from holding an annual general meeting, noting the company's lack of funds and the absence of prejudice to shareholders.

The moving party, Lifeline, sought an order under section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to commence an action against LawPRO to recover on a judgment against the bankrupt lawyer.

Lifeline also sought an order that any recovery belong exclusively to it.

Another creditor, Bridgepoint, supported the section 38 order but opposed the exclusivity term, arguing it should be allowed to participate and share in the proceeds.

The court granted the section 38 order but refused the exclusivity term, holding that Bridgepoint was entitled to participate in the action and share in any recovery under the responsive insurance policies, subject to proving its claim.

CBRE Limited appealed the Proposal Trustee's disallowance of its claim for a real estate commission against the debtors, YG Limited Partnership and YSL Residences Inc. The limited partners of the debtor opposed the appeal.

The court held that the limited partners lacked standing under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to challenge the claim.

The court also determined that the appeal should proceed as a hearing de novo to prevent injustice, as new evidence supported the claim.

The court allowed the appeal, finding clear evidence of the commission agreement and its performance, and awarded costs to CBRE and the Proposal Trustee.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit filed in support of an upcoming summary judgment motion, arguing the statements were hearsay and failed to state the source of information and belief as required by Rule 39.01(4).

The plaintiff argued the sources were discernible from the exhibits attached to the affidavit.

The court declined to strike the statements, provided the plaintiff files a supplementary affidavit within 10 days explicitly stating the sources.

The defendants were awarded costs of $3,600 as the motion could have been avoided had the plaintiff provided the sources when requested.

The bankrupt moved to rescind or annul a bankruptcy order after her father purchased the petitioning creditor's debt by way of assignment.

The bankrupt argued this constituted a fundamental change in circumstances, as her father had no intention of enforcing the debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the bankruptcy order ought not to have been made at the time it was granted.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to annul the bankruptcy, noting the public interest in the bankruptcy regime and the bankrupt's failure to explain why the petitioning creditor was forced to take numerous enforcement steps.

The applicant, a secured creditor for an equipment loan, sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of two related debtor companies: one operating a cannabis facility and the other owning the real estate.

The mortgagees opposed the appointment over the real estate, arguing the applicant had no security interest in it and preferring to sell under power of sale.

The court found it just and convenient under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act to appoint a receiver over all assets of both entities to prevent fragmented sales, maximize recovery, and maintain a court-supervised process, appointing the receiver nominated by the mortgagees.