P. Baxi

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of approximately $37,000 granted in favour of the plaintiff for unpaid fuel invoices.

The defendants had mistakenly filed their statement of defence in the Small Claims Court and, upon discovering the error, learned that default judgment had already been entered.

Applying the Mountain View Farms factors, the court found that while the defendants delayed in obtaining necessary documents, they had demonstrated an intent to defend the action from the beginning and raised an arguable defence regarding miscalculated rebates.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted, though existing writs of execution were ordered to remain in effect pending further order.

The applicant brought an application to remove a Caution registered on the title of his property by his sister, the respondent, which delayed the closing of the property's sale.

The respondent claimed an unregistered interest based on an alleged loan, but withdrew the Caution the day before the hearing.

The court found the respondent had no reasonable cause to register the Caution, as a loan does not constitute an interest in land under the Land Titles Act.

The applicant was awarded $21,251.01 in damages for expenses incurred during the two-month closing delay, plus $30,000 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and brinksmanship.

The applicant brought an application seeking the release of a $60,000 deposit held in trust pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The applicant argued the respondent breached a covenant by failing to obtain releases of the applicant's personal guarantees from third-party creditors.

The respondent argued the obligation was a condition precedent.

The court found that the completion of the agreement was conditional on obtaining the releases, which depended on the will of a third party.

As the condition could not be fulfilled, the agreement was declared null and void, and the deposit was ordered released to the respondent.

The applicant vendor brought an application seeking the forfeiture of a $60,000 deposit paid by the respondent purchaser under a share purchase agreement.

The agreement was conditional on the respondent obtaining releases of the applicant's personal guarantees from third-party creditors (Roynat and Pioneer).

One creditor refused to provide a full release.

The applicant argued this was a breach of covenant entitling him to the deposit, while the respondent argued it was a failure of a condition precedent.

The court held that the requirement to obtain third-party releases was a true condition precedent dependent on the will of a third party.

Because the condition could not be fulfilled, the agreement was null and void, and the deposit was ordered returned to the respondent.

The parties, equal shareholders in a successful machining business, reached a deadlock that paralyzed the companies' operations for eight months.

Bank accounts were frozen, creditors were unpaid, and the business ceased functioning.

The respondent brought a motion to appoint a receiver-manager.

The applicant agreed a receiver was necessary but sought a delay to negotiate a buyout.

The court found that further delay would be futile and disastrous for the companies, and ordered the immediate appointment of a receiver-manager under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act.