Robert De Toni

The trustee applied for an order approving the debtor's Division 1 proposal.

The debtor sought an adjournment to object to the trustee's remuneration and to expunge a creditor's proof of claim.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the debtor had ample opportunity to challenge the claim earlier and that the bankruptcy proceedings had already been excessively delayed.

The court approved the proposal, finding its terms reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors.

This decision addresses costs following a five-day summary trial in an estate matter concerning the authenticity of a "Questioned Document" and ownership of various assets.

The Estate Trustee was largely successful, particularly regarding the document's authenticity and several asset claims.

The court found the Respondents, primarily Alex Hayward, prolonged the proceedings by disputing the document's authenticity and other claims.

Applying principles of estate costs, the court ordered full indemnification for the Estate Trustee, with substantial indemnity costs payable by the active Respondents (Alex, Shawn, David, Lori Hayward) and the balance from the Estate.

The active Respondents also received a portion of their costs from the Estate due to partial success on some claims.

Traders General Insurance Company brought an unsuccessful motion to strike an action, which was tantamount to a motion for summary judgment.

This decision addresses the costs of that motion.

The Plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs, alleging serious misconduct by Traders, while the Trustee in Bankruptcy sought partial indemnity costs.

The court found no fraud or misconduct amounting to contempt by Plaintiffs' counsel.

Considering the importance and difficulty of the motion, the court awarded the Plaintiffs partial indemnity costs of $25,438.16 and the Trustee in Bankruptcy partial indemnity costs of $7,262.33, both inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by Traders within 21 days.

Following a main decision regarding an estate dispute, the parties appeared to argue costs.

Prior to costs arguments, the court addressed the mechanics of the decision, ordering timelines for the pick up of stored articles, tractors, and vehicles.

The court established conditions for the release of a specific tractor upon payment of a prior judgment amount, and set out the consequences of abandonment if items were not collected within the specified periods.

The applicant estate trustee brought a summary trial to determine the ownership of various assets, including vehicles, tractors, furniture, and sheds, following the death of the deceased.

The deceased's former husband, the respondent, claimed ownership of several items and sought reimbursement for a roof replacement and a vehicle purchase.

The court first determined that a supplementary separation agreement from 2002 was authentic, relying on expert evidence regarding thermal fax technology.

Applying this agreement and other evidence, the court allocated ownership of the disputed items between the estate, the respondent, and the children.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims for reimbursement for the roof and vehicle, finding the roof claim was statute-barred and failed the test for unjust enrichment, and the vehicle purchase was a gift.

The moving party insurer sought to set aside an ex parte order granted under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which allowed the plaintiffs to pursue a bad faith claim against the insurer that had been assigned to them by the discharged trustee in bankruptcy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer lacked standing to challenge the s. 38 order as it was not a creditor, debtor, or aggrieved party.

The court further held that the s. 38 order was properly obtained without notice to the insurer, the discharged trustee had the authority to assign the chose in action, and the bad faith claim was property that vested in the bankrupt estate.

The appellants appealed from an order dismissing their motion to strike claims for usurious interest and unlawful commissions in actions brought by the trustee in bankruptcy of the promoters of an alleged Ponzi scheme.

The appellants argued the order was final because it determined a question of law regarding whether the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court found that the motion judge did not formally invoke the applicable rule for determining questions of law, the formal order simply dismissed the motion without making a binding determination, and the motion was premature as pleadings had not closed.

The bankrupt, Charles Rotenberg, applied for a discharge from his third bankruptcy, which was opposed by the trustee and the Attorney General of Canada (Canada Revenue Agency).

The court refused an adjournment request by the bankrupt, noting the long history of the matter and previous adjournments.

The court reviewed the bankrupt's history of multiple bankruptcies, consistent failure to file tax returns and pay income tax, and lack of cooperation with the trustee.

Despite counsel's argument for a conditional discharge, the court found the bankrupt lacked insight and a concrete plan to address his financial situation, and his recent actions were "too little too late." The discharge was refused on grounds including previous bankruptcies, failure to perform duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, failure to comply with surplus income requirements, and assets not equaling fifty cents on the dollar of unsecured liabilities.

Leave was granted to re-apply in 48 months, conditional on full tax compliance.

The plaintiff, Doyle Salewski Inc. (DSI), as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. and Joseph Gilles Jean Claude Lacasse, brought claims against various defendants, including Victor Laschewski, for recovery of usurious interest and unlawful commissions arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme.

The defendant Laschewski brought a motion to strike DSI's claims, arguing they were statute-barred due to expired limitation periods and failed to disclose a cause of action.

DSI brought a cross-motion for leave to amend its statements of claim to explicitly plead unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion to strike, finding that the claims were not statute-barred due to the discoverability rule in bankruptcy/fraudulent schemes and that unjust enrichment was a valid cause of action.

The court granted DSI leave to amend its statements of claim.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff bankruptcy trustee's claims for the return of usurious interest and unlawful commissions paid as part of a Ponzi scheme.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred and that breach of statute is not a valid civil cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the trustee completed its investigation into the complex fraud.

The court also granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the pleadings to explicitly frame the claims in unjust enrichment.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff bankruptcy trustee's claims for the recovery of usurious interest and unlawful commissions paid as part of a Ponzi scheme.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend the statements of claim to explicitly plead unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the trustee discovered the fraudulent nature of the scheme, and that unjust enrichment was a valid cause of action.

The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the pleadings, as the amendments would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought declarations of ownership by adverse possession and an easement by necessity over portions of land surrounding their waterfront property, which they claimed were necessary for access and the location of their septic system.

The defendant, who owned the surrounding lands, counterclaimed for the removal of the plaintiffs' structures.

The court found that the plaintiffs had established adverse possession over the land containing their septic system due to a mutual mistake about the property boundaries.

The court also granted the plaintiffs an easement by necessity over the access road, finding that the original subdivision plan intended for the lots to have access, and the property would otherwise be landlocked.

The defendant's counterclaim was largely dismissed, except for an order to remove a small portion of the septic field encroaching on another part of the defendant's land.

The plaintiffs sought declarations that a 40‑foot road allowance adjacent to their property constituted a public highway and alternatively claimed ownership of portions of neighbouring land through adverse possession or similar equitable remedies.

The Township and the neighbouring landowner brought motions for summary judgment, while the plaintiffs brought a cross‑motion to amend their statement of claim.

The court granted leave to amend under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the proposed amendments legally tenable and not causing irremediable prejudice.

Summary judgment was granted to the Township because the evidence established the road allowance was a private roadway never dedicated to or accepted by the municipality as a public highway.

However, summary judgment was refused with respect to the neighbouring landowner because significant factual disputes, including inconsistent permission agreements and issues surrounding encroachments and use rights, required a full trial.