The Receiver sought a discharge order, addressing the enforceability of an indemnity agreement and entitlement to an HST refund.
The Indemnifying Parties argued the receivership proceeding was an improper venue for contract breach claims and raised misrepresentation defenses regarding the indemnity agreement, as well as a potential claim for the Receiver's alleged mismanagement of life insurance policies.
The court found the receivership proceeding an appropriate venue, granted summary judgment on the enforceability of the indemnity agreement, and denied a stay of enforcement.
The court also deferred the HST refund issue for further clarification.
