Renée Brosseau

The plaintiff title insurer brought an undefended motion for summary judgment against a disbarred lawyer and his law firm.

The defendant had acted for vendors in a real estate transaction and misappropriated the purchase funds, failing to pay municipal taxes or discharge existing mortgages.

The plaintiff paid $101,484.38 to clear title for the purchasers and sought to recover this amount plus $100,000 in punitive damages.

The court granted judgment for the compensatory damages and awarded $25,000 in punitive damages, finding the defendant's conduct struck at the heart of the trust necessary for real estate transactions.

The court granted a motion to dispense with service of the statement of claim and motion on the deceased’s estate, finding that the plaintiff had made extensive but unsuccessful efforts to locate a representative for the estate.

The court relied on the Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant case law to permit the proceeding to continue in the absence of a representative, and ordered that any surplus proceeds be paid into court on notice to the beneficiaries.

Costs were fixed at $8,943.47.

The appellant, a secured creditor, appealed an order approving a receiver's proposed purchase agreement and technology license agreement for the assets of the respondent companies.

The appellant argued that the proposal was identical to one previously rejected by another judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the new proposal differed significantly and that the motion judge appropriately applied the Soundair principles in approving the transaction, given the changed circumstances and the need to sell the subsidiary as a going concern.

The trustee in bankruptcy appealed the dismissal of its motion to examine the court-appointed interim receiver and to vary a sale approval and vesting order made four years prior.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the interim receiver had already provided all necessary information informally, and that the trustee was improperly attempting to use the variation provision to appeal the vesting order out of time.

The appellants sought to lift a stay of proceedings under the CCAA to terminate long-term gas supply contracts with the insolvent respondent.

They argued the contracts were 'eligible financial contracts' (EFCs) under s. 11.1(1) of the CCAA, which would exempt them from the stay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal, finding the contracts lacked the hallmarks of financial risk management required to be EFCs.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the contracts were EFCs, the appellants could not terminate them because the contract terms only allowed termination for non-payment, and the respondent was not in default.

The moving parties sought an order to expedite their motion for leave to appeal a decision finding that certain gas purchase agreements were not 'eligible financial contracts' under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The moving parties argued urgency because a U.S. bankruptcy court was scheduled to deal with all matters in the insolvency shortly.

The respondent opposed, arguing the issue was academic.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to expedite, finding that if there was any benefit to the appeal, it would only assist if determined before the U.S. proceedings.