Paul J. Daffern

The decision addresses two competing motions for the appointment of representative counsel for investors in a receivership proceeding involving Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court reviews the procedural background, the need for representative counsel, and the competing proposals from Aird & Berlis LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

The court ultimately appoints Aird & Berlis LLP as representative counsel, finding their approach and fee structure preferable for efficiency, transparency, and certainty.

This decision concerns three related matters: the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. and related companies, the granting of a Mareva injunction against Sanford Sussman, and the scheduling of a motion to appoint representative counsel for investors.

The court finds the appointment of B. Riley Farber Inc. as receiver to be in the public interest and grants the Mareva injunction on consent.

The decision addresses the statutory and common law bases for receivership, the public interest in protecting investors, and the coordination of proceedings involving multiple stakeholders.

This endorsement addresses three related matters: the appointment of B. Riley Farber Inc. as receiver over the property of the respondents, the granting of a Mareva injunction against Sanford Sussman, and the scheduling of a motion to appoint representative counsel for investors in mortgages brokered and administered by Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court finds the appointment of a receiver to be in the public interest and just and convenient, and grants the Mareva injunction on consent.

The endorsement also sets out the background of the proceedings, the issues to be determined, and the reasons for the orders made.

The applicant, The District Municipality of Muskoka, sought a declaration that a lease agreement with the respondent, David Gronfors, had validly terminated and an order for vacant possession of airport premises.

The respondent argued the lease had not expired, that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction due to the airport context (federal law), and that a forum selection clause mandated the Federal Court.

The court found that the provincial Commercial Tenancies Act applied, exercised its discretion to hear the case despite the forum selection clause, and determined the lease had indeed expired on October 31, 2023, based on clear lease terms and the respondent's prior inconsistent representations in other litigation.

A writ of possession was ordered.

The applicant sought directions in an application to set aside her mother's will for incapacity and undue influence, and to contest a property transfer.

The motion was adjourned on consent, but the applicant's request for specific adjournment terms, including freezing a condominium property, was denied.

The court criticized the applicant's counsel for unilateral scheduling, lack of civility, and overreaching demands, ordering the applicant to pay the respondents' costs thrown away.

The Proposal Trustee brought a motion under s. 65.13 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to approve the sale of two licensed retirement homes owned by the insolvent debtors.

The second mortgagee opposed the sale, arguing the sales process was flawed, the price was below market value, and it was denied the opportunity to properly value the properties.

The court found the sales process was reasonable given the debtors' insolvency and the imminent expiration of their operating licenses.

The court also found the sale price was fair based on independent appraisals and granted the motion to approve the sale, along with a sealing order over the appraisal exhibits.

This is an appeal by a father from a trial order regarding child support, retroactive child support, a charging order, and costs.

The trial judge imputed income to the father due to his failure to disclose and efforts to conceal income, awarded retroactive support, and secured obligations with a charging order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal, upholding the trial judge's imputation of income, the retroactive child support award (consistent with the new Colucci framework), and the charging order, finding no palpable and overriding errors or jurisdictional issues.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied, as the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised given the father's conduct.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support from the respondent husband.

The court addressed the issues of commencement date and quantum of support, finding the wife's evidence more credible than the husband's, particularly regarding his income and extensive business interests.

Due to the husband's lack of transparent financial disclosure and the family's high-end lifestyle, the court imputed a significantly higher income to the husband than he declared and ordered him to pay interim spousal support.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), arguing there was good reason to believe the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay a costs award.

The court found the defendant failed to meet the initial low threshold, as the plaintiff's representative was never asked directly about the corporation's assets or financial statements during discovery.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion relating to outstanding undertakings and refusals arising from extensive examinations for discovery of a defendant.

The court reviewed numerous undertakings and determined that several had been satisfactorily answered, while others required reproduction of documents in an organized format to properly address the undertakings.

The court also ordered disclosure of certain financial documents relevant to claims for accounting and disgorgement.

However, the court declined to compel any further examinations, finding that five days of discovery and thousands of questions already rendered the process disproportionate under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following competing motions for security for costs, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security and dismissed the plaintiff’s own motion for security.

The defendants sought costs of $18,618.92 while the plaintiff argued the amount should be reduced due to duplication of effort after the defendants changed counsel and allegedly excessive preparation and travel charges.

Applying the discretionary principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality, fairness, and reasonableness in fixing costs.

The court found some duplication attributable to the change of counsel and considered the limited scope of the half‑day motion.

Costs were fixed at $14,000 all inclusive payable by the plaintiff.