Raymond M. Slattery

The Receiver brought a motion seeking approval of its activities, approval of a sales process for two properties, and an order requiring a tenant to disclose tenancy documentation.

The court declined to grant a generic approval of the Receiver's activities, finding it unnecessary.

The court ordered the tenant to comply with its disclosure obligations, rejecting the tenant's confidentiality objections.

The court approved the proposed sales process and listing agreements, subject to conditions including a time-limited sealing order for appraisals and the circulation of redacted listing proposals to the parties.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding her late parents' estates.

The parties disputed the valuation date for real estate joint ventures and corporate shares used to fund a $4.9 million preference payment to the applicant.

The applicant argued for 2010 valuations, which would grant her the subsequent appreciation in value, while the respondent argued for current valuations.

The court held that, based on an objective interpretation of the settlement and the general rule for estate distributions, the assets must be valued at a date proximate to their distribution.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision granting payment of invoices for demolition and clean-up work performed on their fire-damaged property.

The motion judge found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the amount owing.

The respondent had provided comprehensive documentation including receipts, supplier invoices, worker timesheets, and the final amount had been audited by a company appointed by the appellants' insurer.

The appellants did not cross-examine and failed to raise sufficient doubt about the amount.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment and dismissed the appeal.

A priority dispute arose between Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), a secured creditor of bankrupt contractor A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd., Guarantee Company of North America (GCNA), a bond company and secured creditor, and certain employees represented by unions.

The central issue was whether funds paid to the receiver by owners, which constituted "trust funds" under section 8 of the Construction Lien Act (CLA), were excluded from the bankrupt's estate available to creditors pursuant to section 67(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The motion judge found the funds were not excluded and were available for distribution.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that provincially created statutory trusts satisfying general principles of trust law are preserved from distribution to ordinary creditors under the BIA.

The applicant, Icona Hospitality Inc., sought an order under s. 61(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to delete restrictive covenants from the title to its land.

The covenants restricted the site's use solely to a hotel.

Icona proposed a mixed-use high-rise redevelopment, arguing the covenants were spent or unsuitable due to changed planning policies and the area's designation as an Urban Growth Centre.

The respondents, beneficiaries of the covenants, opposed the application, citing potential negative impacts on their own development plans and market competition.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Icona failed to demonstrate that the covenants were spent or so unsuitable as to be of no value, or that their assertion by the respondents would be vexatious.

The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under s. 61(1) must be exercised with caution and an order will seldom be granted if prejudicial to the adjacent landowner, rejecting a simple balancing of monetary interests.

In a priority dispute following the bankruptcy of a paving company, a bond company argued that funds held by the receiver in a project account were statutory trust funds under the Construction Lien Act and therefore excluded from the bankrupt's estate under s. 67(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court dismissed the trust claim, finding that the funds lacked the certainty of subject matter required to constitute a true common law trust, as they were not identifiable or held separately prior to the receivership.

Consequently, the funds were to be distributed under the BIA scheme.

A receiver sought to defeat an appeal from a court order approving the sale of real property (a residential condominium project for seniors) to Pinnacle International One Lands Inc. The appellant, Fortress, had competed for the property through a stalking horse bidding process and subsequently submitted competing offers.

The receiver accepted Pinnacle's offer.

Fortress appealed, relying solely on section 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which provides an automatic right of appeal if property involved exceeds $10,000 in value.

The Court of Appeal held that the approval order did not "result in a loss" within the meaning of section 193(c) because the receiver could not have obtained a better deal than Pinnacle's offer.

The court found that Pinnacle's offer had superior practical value due to a higher deposit, all-cash financing, support from the first mortgagee, and the integrity of the sale process.

Burnco Manufacturing Inc. was successful on a motion to have two actions tried together and sought partial indemnity costs of $37,248.71.

Ellisdon Corporation and E.S. Fox Limited, who had opposed the underlying motion and conducted cross-examinations, argued the amount sought was excessive.

The Master, applying principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, and considering factors such as the motion's complexity, counsel's seniority, and actions that prolonged the motion, reduced Burnco's costs.

The final award was $20,000, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, to be shared equally by Ellisdon and Fox.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion under Rule 6.01 to have its action against the general contractor tried together with or immediately following a companion action brought against it by its sub-subcontractor.

Both actions arose from delays and scope changes on the same construction project.

The court applied the Master Dash factors and concluded that the actions shared interwoven issues regarding project changes and delays, creating a risk of inconsistent findings if tried separately.

The motion was granted, and the court ordered the actions to be tried consecutively, with the plaintiff's action proceeding first.

The defendants sought summary judgment dismissing an action by a commercial tenant alleging that the landlord waived a lease provision requiring written notice to exercise a renewal option.

The tenant conceded that it failed to deliver written notice within the contractual deadline but argued that continued negotiations constituted waiver or estoppel.

The court held that negotiations regarding a possible new lease did not amount to a clear, explicit, and unequivocal exercise of the renewal option and did not establish waiver by the landlord.

The court further held that there was no independent tort duty requiring the landlord’s leasing agent to negotiate reasonably or in good faith.

Finding the matter entirely document-driven with no genuine issue requiring trial, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.