R. B. Moldaver

The parties contacted the court following the release of the Reasons for Judgment to advise that the consent damages calculation of $2,214,895.00 inadvertently omitted a one-time payment of $562,000.00.

The court issued an addendum amending the damages awarded to the plaintiffs to $2,776,895.00.

The applicant bank sought the appointment of a receiver over two corporate debtors and two residential properties owned by the individual guarantor following defaults on credit facilities.

The debtors opposed the appointment, arguing there was no urgency and that the guarantor was best positioned to sell the properties.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver over the corporate entities and a vacant residential property due to the ongoing erosion of security and the guarantor's failure to secure refinancing or a sale over two years.

However, the court declined to appoint a receiver over the guarantor's matrimonial home, finding it unnecessarily invasive and noting the bank could pursue other contractual remedies.

The moving party sought an order dismissing relief requested in a notice of hearing for directions and a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction to continue a reference arising from a judgment for sale under the Partition Act.

The original judgment ordered the sale of jointly owned properties under the direction of a referee, with proceeds to be paid into court.

The applicant in the original proceeding later privately sold its ownership interest without complying with the judgment for sale and without paying proceeds into court.

The court held that the judgment for sale was the sole jurisdictional basis for the reference and had become unenforceable due to the private sale.

As a result, the reference master lacked jurisdiction to continue the reference.

A secured creditor applied for the appointment of a receiver over a debtor real estate holding company under s. 243(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent argued that the appointment of a receiver should not proceed by application and that ordinary remedies were available.

The court held that the governing legislation expressly contemplates appointment by application and that such an order constitutes a final order determining the issues raised.

Given the debtor’s continuing default, the enforceability of the creditor’s security, and the lack of an operating business, the court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver.