2 total
The court upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to re-open a receivership auction process following a substantially higher late offer.
The appellant entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with a court-appointed receiver to purchase real estate.
The receiver brought a motion for approval and vesting.
However, late-breaking offers emerged, including one 37% higher than the appellant's offer.
The motion judge declined to approve the sale and instead ordered a six-day extension of the bidding process.
The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge misapplied the principles from Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly exercised discretion in reopening the auction process given the magnitude of the late offer and the receiver's alternative recommendation.
Motion to enforce settlement granted; standard general release implies claims over and indemnity clauses.
The moving parties (the Crosslinx Defendants) sought an order under Rule 49.09 to enforce a settlement reached with the plaintiff.
The parties disagreed on the scope and form of the release to be signed by the plaintiff.
The court held that without prejudice communications were admissible to determine the scope of the settlement.
The court further held that the parties bargained for a standard general release, which implicitly includes claims over and contribution/indemnity clauses, and ordered the plaintiff to execute the release with those terms included, subject to minor clarifying revisions.
