5 total
Motion for distribution of sale proceeds partially granted; court rejects argument that funds were frozen pending trial.
The parties, equal shareholders in a real estate business, underwent a court-ordered sales process overseen by a Sales Officer.
The moving party brought a motion for the distribution of $10 million from the net proceeds of the sale.
The responding party opposed, arguing the funds should be frozen until trial to secure his claims.
The court held that the prior Appointment Order did not function as a Mareva injunction and there was no basis to freeze the funds.
However, due to a lack of evidence regarding potential corporate tax liabilities, the court approved a reduced distribution of $8 million, split equally between the parties.
Summary judgment granted for unpaid remediation invoices; breach of trust claim against directors dismissed.
The plaintiff restoration company brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices relating to fire damage remediation at the defendants' hotel.
The plaintiff also claimed breach of trust against the individual defendants, alleging they misused insurance proceeds.
The court granted summary judgment for the unpaid invoices, finding the corporate defendants failed to put their best foot forward and raised only speculative objections.
However, the court dismissed the breach of trust claim against the individual defendants, as there was no evidence the insurance funds were misused for personal benefit.
Substantial indemnity costs awarded against creditor for meritless receivership motion.
Following dismissal of a creditor’s motion seeking to compel a court‑appointed receiver to answer extensive questions and pay funds relating to a claim under s. 81.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court addressed the receiver’s entitlement to costs.
The responding creditor argued costs should await determination of a separate request to unseal confidential documents and contended it had achieved partial success.
The court rejected those submissions, holding the creditor had been entirely unsuccessful and that delaying costs would improperly leave their determination in the creditor’s control.
Finding the motion constituted an unwarranted fishing expedition that unnecessarily increased the receivership’s expenses, the court concluded the conduct was sufficiently improper to justify substantial indemnity costs.
The receiver’s costs were assessed at $23,236.76 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Receiver discharged; creditor's motion for information and immediate payment of s. 81.1 claim dismissed.
The court heard two motions in a receivership proceeding.
The Receiver moved for its discharge and release from liability, having completed its mandate to close a sale transaction.
A creditor brought a motion to compel the Receiver to answer 114 questions, unseal confidential appendices, and pay out funds held in trust for its s. 81.1 claim.
The court dismissed the creditor's requests for answers and payment, finding the questions to be an unreasonable fishing expedition and the payment premature as the claim was not yet determined.
The request to unseal documents was adjourned to allow the affected party to respond.
The court granted the Receiver's discharge, finding no evidence of improper conduct.
Appeal of receivership order quashed for lack of jurisdiction as the order was interlocutory and required leave.
The appellants appealed an order appointing a receiver and setting conditions for the appointment.
The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding the court's jurisdiction, arguing the order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the order was designed to implement a prior judgment and was therefore interlocutory.
The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to the appellants seeking leave to appeal.
