Peter J. Osborne

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, Royal Fox Gold Inc., sought court approval for a plan of arrangement with Northern Superior Resources Inc. under section 182 of the Business Corporations Act.

The court considered whether statutory procedures were met, the application was in good faith, and the arrangement was fair and reasonable, applying the test from *Re Magna International Inc.* and *BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders*.

The arrangement, which involved an exchange of shares and contingent value rights, received overwhelming shareholder approval.

The court found all requirements satisfied and granted the final approval order.

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.

The applicant bank sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of the respondent debtor, alleging the debtor committed an event of default by providing falsified financial statements from the vendor of a gas station.

The respondents requested an adjournment to cross-examine the bank's affiant, arguing the evidence of the falsified statements was double hearsay.

The court adjourned the application to a date to be scheduled, on the conditions that the debtor remain current on all loan payments and provide the bank with full visibility into its financial and operational information.

The applicants sought to rectify a share exchange agreement and related documents that contained a drafting error regarding the number of shares to be issued.

The error had adverse tax consequences.

The Attorney General did not oppose the application.

The court applied the four-part test for rectification from Fairmont, finding that the parties had a clear prior agreement, the agreement was still effective, the documents failed to record it accurately, and the proposed rectification would carry out the agreement.

The court distinguished the recent Supreme Court decision in Collins, noting this was not retroactive tax planning but correcting an erroneous transcription.

The application was granted.

The applicant, acting as receiver for the primary secured creditor, sought the appointment of a receiver and manager over the debtor company.

The debtor company's interim receiver concurrently sought an extension of time to file a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and approval of its activities.

The court lifted the existing stays of proceedings, appointed the receiver, granted a 45-day extension to file a proposal to avoid automatic bankruptcy, and approved the interim receiver's activities, finding the relief to be just, convenient, and unopposed.

The Trustee brought motions to find the respondent in civil contempt for failing to attend compelled examinations under s. 163(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Despite numerous attempts at service and clear evidence that the respondent had actual knowledge of the orders compelling her attendance, she repeatedly failed to appear.

The court applied the three-part test from Carey v. Laiken and found the respondent in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A warrant for her arrest was issued under Rule 60.11(4) to compel her attendance at the penalty hearing.

The Court-appointed Receiver of the debtor brought a motion for an order authorizing it to terminate an informal tenancy between the debtor and a related party, and to require vacant possession of the property to facilitate its sale.

The principal of the debtor opposed the motion, seeking more time to secure financing to repay the indebtedness.

The court found no credible evidence of unconditional financing and held that the Receiver could terminate the informal lease arrangement to maximize sale proceeds.

The court ordered that the tenant must be given at least 60 days' notice prior to the closing of any binding agreement of purchase and sale.

The applicant sought final court approval for a plan of arrangement under section 182 of the Business Corporations Act, whereby the respondent would acquire all issued and outstanding common shares of the applicant.

The court found that the statutory procedures were met, the application was put forward in good faith, and the arrangement was fair and reasonable, noting overwhelming shareholder approval and the presence of fairness opinions.

The final order approving the arrangement was granted.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion for the payout of its 50% share of proceeds from the sale of a property, which had been vested in the Trustee following a finding of fraudulent conveyance.

The bankrupt's spouse brought a cross-motion claiming deductions from the Trustee's share for carrying costs, improvements, and a line of credit debt.

The court granted the Trustee's motion and dismissed the cross-motion, finding that the parties' prior agreement did not provide for such deductions, the expenses did not increase the property's capital value, and the equitable claims were barred by cause of action estoppel.

The applicants and respondents, involved in a joint venture for a condominium development, experienced an irrevocable breakdown in their relationship.

Both sides agreed the property should be sold but disagreed on the mechanism: the applicants sought the appointment of a receiver, while the respondents sought a signing officer with limited powers.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver to conduct the sales process, concluding that a receivership would not stigmatize the property and that the receiver's powers could be appropriately tailored to consider existing offers.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) brought a motion for directions to approve the sale of a commercial property belonging to the deceased's estate.

The sale was supported by one residual beneficiary but opposed by the other, who argued the property was undervalued.

The court applied the principles for approving a sale by a court-appointed receiver or trustee, finding that the ETDL had the power to sell, acted in good faith, and made sufficient efforts to obtain the best price by exposing the property to the market.

The court approved the sale, concluding it was in the best interests of the estate, and awarded costs to the ETDL and the supporting beneficiary.

The Ontario Court of Appeal heard two appeals concerning the definition of 'spouse' under Ontario's social assistance legislation.

In the Falkiner appeal, the court held that the 1995 'spouse in the house' rule, which presumed a spousal relationship based on co-residency and financial arrangements, violated s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The court recognized 'receipt of social assistance' as an analogous ground of discrimination and found the definition discriminated on the basis of sex, marital status, and receipt of social assistance.

The violation was not justified under s. 1.

In the Thomas appeal, the court found the Board erred in classifying a disabled man and his caregiver as spouses without considering if the relationship was marriage-like or accounting for his disability.

The government's appeal in Falkiner was dismissed, and Thomas's appeal was allowed.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum to correct a mathematical error in its previous endorsement on a sentence appeal.

The court amended the sentence for breaking and entering and committing a sexual assault to 36 months, clarifying that the intended total sentence for all offences, taking into account time served and the principle of totality, is 62 months.