Richard Quance

The parties agreed on a further order addressing the request for relief pursuant to a previous endorsement.

The court signed the consent order and remained seized of the matter to address any potential non-compliance.

The applicants and respondents were the four directors of a non-share corporation operating a religious seminary.

The corporation faced severe financial difficulties, and the applicants sought to sell its main property to pay off debts.

The respondents refused to consent, resulting in a board deadlock.

The applicants applied for a court order compelling the sale under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Highwood that courts should generally avoid interfering in the internal decision-making of religious organizations, especially where no procedural unfairness is shown and alternative remedies exist.

The representative plaintiff in two companion class actions against the Tim Hortons franchisor sought approval of a settlement agreement and class counsel fees.

The settlement included a $10 million payment toward local marketing initiatives, $2 million for legal costs, and significant non-monetary benefits valued at over $25 million, including governance changes and the revocation of restrictive clauses.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it achieved access to justice, judicial economy, and behaviour modification.

The court also approved the fee requests for the litigation funder and class counsel, finding them to be within a zone of reasonableness.

The plaintiffs, Tim Hortons franchisees, brought a motion for approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Galactic TH Litigation Funders LC in their proposed class action against the franchisor.

The court applied the multi-part test from Houle, finding the agreement necessary for access to justice, substantively meaningful, fair and reasonable, and protective of the defendant's interests.

The court also found the funder would not be overcompensated.

The funding agreement and budget were approved.

The plaintiff, as assignee of a trustee in bankruptcy, brought a motion for summary judgment to recover $217,500 from the bankrupt's spouse.

The bankrupt had used his share of the proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property to pay down the mortgage on a property purchased solely by his spouse.

The court found that the transfer was a transfer at undervalue under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court rejected the spouse's argument that they were dealing at arm's length, noting that spouses are presumed not to act at arm's length and her self-serving affidavit lacked supporting detail to rebut the presumption.

Summary judgment was granted.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff buyer on a commercial property.

The plaintiff had failed to close the $75 million transaction on multiple extended closing dates due to lack of financing.

The plaintiff argued the 'time is of the essence' clause had been waived by the defendants' conduct.

The court found no triable issue that the clause was waived, as each extension reaffirmed it and the defendants' subsequent communications were settlement offers, not waivers.

The court discharged the CPL, declared the plaintiff had no interest in the property, and ordered the deposits forfeited.

Following a four-day trial where both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $71,412.81, while the plaintiff argued each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found that success somewhat favoured the defendant, as the trial focused primarily on the main claim.

Applying the principle that costs should reflect what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $25,000 in costs.

Following a Divisional Court decision remitting the matter back to the trial judge to determine damages, the court issued a scheduling endorsement.

The endorsement sets out a timetable for the exchange of valuation reports and directs the parties to schedule a date for the damages re-hearing once the reports are exchanged.

The plaintiff buyer sought specific performance of a condition in an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a commercial investment property, alleging the defendant seller failed to deliver required due diligence documents.

The seller counterclaimed for the $100,000 deposit, arguing the buyer defaulted.

Following a four-day trial, the court dismissed both claims.

The court found the seller had satisfied its document delivery obligations.

Furthermore, the court held that specific performance was unavailable because the property was purchased solely for investment purposes and lacked uniqueness.

The seller's counterclaim was dismissed because the buyer never waived the condition, meaning the agreement became null and void and the deposit was returnable to the buyer.

Subsequent mortgagees challenged the validity of a first mortgagee’s power of sale of a Toronto property, alleging they were never served with the required notice and that the notice misstated the amount owing under the mortgage.

The court found the notice of sale had not been served on the subsequent encumbrancers due to a mailing error and that the amount claimed owing was materially overstated through the improper inclusion of pre‑assignment expenses.

As a result, the statutory requirements of the Mortgages Act were not satisfied and the power of sale was invalid.

The purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value but had actual notice that the validity of the sale was being challenged and therefore could not rely on statutory protections for “professed compliance.” The purchaser and related subsequent mortgagees did not obtain valid title or charges as against the applicants, though the independent first mortgagee lender retained a valid interest.