Pavle Masic

Prodensa, a Mexican corporation and defendant by counterclaim, moved to stay the counterclaim against it, arguing lack of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, or the existence of an arbitration agreement.

The counterclaim, brought by Ontario-based Advantage, alleged torts of fraudulent misrepresentation and conversion related to equipment and funds in Mexico, stemming from a "shelter services" arrangement.

The court found jurisdiction simpliciter based on the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation, which was deemed to have occurred in Ontario where the false information was received and relied upon.

Additionally, the court found a contract (Memorandum of Understanding) connected with the dispute was made in Ontario.

The court dismissed the forum non conveniens argument, emphasizing the inter-relatedness of the counterclaim with the main action and the risk of conflicting judgments.

Finally, it was determined that no valid arbitration agreement governed the parties' relationship.

The motion was dismissed.

Advantage Engineering Inc. sued Polaris Industries Inc. for breach of a Master Supply Agreement and unjust enrichment.

Polaris moved to dismiss or stay the action and refer the dispute to arbitration in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as per an arbitration clause in the agreement.

Advantage argued the agreement was nullified by breach, its claims were outside the agreement, the clause was inoperative due to a key witness's inability to travel, and Polaris's delay.

The court found the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, applying the competence-competence principle.

The court dismissed Advantage's arguments, including the claim that the witness's travel restrictions rendered the clause inoperative, and granted Polaris's motion, staying the action and referring the dispute to arbitration.

In the context of a receivership, representative counsel for the investors of Redstone Capital Corporation brought a motion for leave to deliver a new affidavit in an ongoing substantive consolidation hearing.

The hearing had already commenced and was adjourned pending this motion.

The court applied the test under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the proposed evidence, which detailed an individual investor's motivation for investing, was not relevant to the test for substantive consolidation.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

In a complex receivership and bankruptcy-related proceeding involving a charitable foundation and associated corporations, the applicants brought a motion relating to governance and procedural matters in ongoing litigation.

The court addressed scheduling issues arising after a prior endorsement and dealt with a motion seeking removal of the remaining director of the foundation.

The court directed that the director indicate whether she would consent to removal and scheduled further steps if consent was not provided.

The court also rescheduled examinations and cross-examinations of two individuals in Buffalo, New York, set procedural timelines, and confirmed certain agreed limitations on director liability and additional costs awards.

In an inspection proceeding under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the court addressed competing motions to approve professional fees incurred during an investigation of several corporations connected to development projects and investment solicitations.

The applicants and the court-appointed inspector sought approval of their accounts and an increase to the existing administrative charge securing payment of investigation costs.

The court assessed the inspector’s fees, legal fees, and applicants’ counsel fees under Rule 57, reducing certain amounts for duplication, clerical work, and excessive rates.

The administrative charge was increased from $200,000 to $399,398 to cover the approved costs.

While the respondents, including a controlling director, were held liable for the costs, the court declined to expand the administrative charge to include the director’s personal assets.

Investors sought the appointment of a receiver over several related corporations and continuation of restraining orders against individuals and entities associated with a charitable foundation alleged to have received investor funds.

The court reviewed the procedural history of inspection, receivership, and bankruptcy proceedings, including interim orders restraining dissipation of assets and permitting limited use of funds for legal and living expenses.

Evidence suggested that investor funds from Ontario real estate projects had been transferred to a charitable foundation and subsequently moved to the United States, including property transactions shortly before asset-freezing motions.

In the absence of opposing materials from several respondent corporations, the court confirmed the appointment of a receiver over certain corporations and extended the interim receivership and restraining orders affecting the foundation and related individuals.

In complex receivership and bankruptcy-related proceedings involving a charitable foundation and associated corporations, the court addressed scheduling and procedural issues arising after prior bankruptcy orders.

Motions concerning the removal of directors and issues involving a third-party entity were adjourned on consent to dates to be set by the trial coordinator.

Examinations of certain responding parties were cancelled due to immigration concerns relating to re-entry into the United States.

The court directed that the examinations proceed in Buffalo, New York under Ontario procedural law, ordered the responding parties to seek necessary U.S. visa permissions, and required advance funding of travel costs for opposing counsel and the receiver.

The endorsement also addressed potential venue issues in a related promissory note action.

Investors and related applicants brought proceedings seeking receivership and related relief against several corporations and individuals connected to a charitable foundation.

Evidence showed the foundation transferred a Florida property to its directors shortly after learning of a pending motion seeking to restrain asset dissipation and appoint a receiver.

The court continued interim restraining and receivership orders and granted a full receivership order against certain corporate respondents other than the foundation.

The issue of whether the property transfer constituted a void transfer under s. 95(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was adjourned to the scheduled bankruptcy trial.

The court also prohibited the release of funds held in a lawyer’s trust account and approved the receiver’s reports.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing their action for delay.

The action, which sought $25 million in damages against a condominium superintendent and related parties for alleged criminal acts, was dismissed after the plaintiffs inadvertently missed a court-ordered deadline to set the action down for trial.

The Master applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiffs moved promptly to set aside the order, the delay was adequately explained and resulted from inadvertence, and the defendants suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside with no order as to costs.