Robert J. De Toni

The Trustee brought a motion to determine whether the increase in equity in the bankrupt's property, which was sold post-bankruptcy, was after-acquired property belonging to the estate.

The bankrupt brought a cross-motion claiming entitlement to the proceeds and damages.

The court found that the bankrupt was not an honest but unfortunate debtor, having failed to comply with his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, including failing to disclose surplus income.

The court held that the increase in equity was after-acquired property vesting in the Trustee, rejecting the bankrupt's arguments based on an equity agreement and promissory estoppel.

The Trustee's motion was granted, and the cross-motion was dismissed.

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 appeal concerned the estate of Jeanne Hayward, specifically claims by her former husband, Alexander Hayward, regarding a Chevrolet Malibu (alleged loan vs. gift) and a Montana tractor, and a costs award.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by ruling on the Malibu as a gift without the issue being argued, remitting it for a new trial.

The appeal regarding the tractor loan repayment being time-barred was dismissed as the defence was not raised at trial.

The Court largely upheld the substantial indemnity costs award against Alexander and supporting siblings due to their misconduct, including disputing document authenticity, but reduced the amount Leslie, as estate trustee, could recover from the estate for personal disputes.

The plaintiff sought costs following a motion for injunctive and non-injunctive relief related to a shareholder dispute over residential properties.

Although the request for an injunction was dismissed, the court granted equitable non-injunctive relief that protected the plaintiff's alleged interest in the properties.

The court found that the plaintiff achieved a measure of success on the motion, as the defendants had refused to extend their undertaking or agree to the relief sought.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $32,770, payable in the cause.

The applicant, Chase Wong, brought a motion for interim injunctive and non-injunctive relief under the oppression remedy provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The motion for interim injunctive relief was dismissed, while the motion for non-injunctive relief was granted.

The parties subsequently agreed on the terms of the order, which included provisions for accounting, restrictions on the use and sale of corporate properties, and prohibitions on certain corporate actions pending a final determination of the related application.

The court also provided directions for costs submissions and clarified that issues related to outstanding undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery require a separate motion.

The plaintiff, Chase Wong, brought a motion seeking interim injunctive relief and other interim relief under the oppression remedy provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Wong alleged a verbal agreement for a 50% shareholding in the defendant corporation, which owned three residential properties.

The court found a serious question to be tried regarding the alleged verbal agreement.

However, the request for interlocutory injunctive relief to prevent the sale, encumbrance, or major renovations of the properties was dismissed, as Wong failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be quantified in monetary terms.

A request for a declaration of constructive trust was also dismissed as it amounted to a final determination.

Despite this, the court granted interim non-injunctive relief, ordering the defendant corporation to remain the owner of the properties, account for income and expenses, and be precluded from using the properties as security (except for reasonable repair/renovation) without Wong's consent or a further court order.

An existing undertaking preventing the sale of properties remained in force until the terms of a detailed interim order could be finalized.

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.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which sought contribution and indemnity, damages, and disgorgement arising from the defendants' alleged involvement in a Ponzi scheme operated by Golden Oaks.

The court struck the claims for contribution and indemnity without leave to amend, finding no common liability to third parties and no viable duty of care owed to the unsecured creditors.

The claims for damages were struck with leave to amend to properly plead the losses suffered by the company.

The claims for disgorgement and accounting were permitted to proceed.

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.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy sought costs after successfully prosecuting seventeen lawsuits against individuals and companies who received payments from a bankrupt entity.

The court determined reasonable costs, discounting for settled actions and applying Small Claims Court caps where applicable, ultimately awarding $232,500 in total costs and allocating them among the defendants.

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.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims of elder abuse and civil fraud, the successful defendants sought their costs of the action.

The court found that the plaintiffs engaged in reprehensible conduct by pursuing baseless allegations of fraud, deceit, and misappropriation against the defendants.

Consequently, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs up to the date of trial and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs award at $100,000.

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 plaintiffs, a mother and daughter, brought an action against the mother's son, his spouse, and their son, alleging that the son misappropriated £67,000 from a joint bank account.

The defendants argued that the funds were a valid inter vivos gift.

The court found that the funds belonged to the mother and that she intended to gift them to her son and grandson.

The court also dismissed claims of undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and false representations, concluding that the mother's decision was made freely and with full capacity.

The action was dismissed.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy of Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc., a company that operated a Ponzi scheme, brought 17 actions against various investors to recover payments made to them prior to the bankruptcy.

The Trustee sought recovery under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for preferential payments and transfers at undervalue, and under the common law for unjust enrichment regarding usurious interest and commission payments.

The court found that Golden Oaks was a Ponzi scheme and was insolvent when the payments were made.

The court granted the preference claims against certain defendants who were not dealing at arm's length with the company.

The court also granted the unjust enrichment claims for the return of usurious interest payments, finding that the promissory notes providing for criminal rates of interest were illegal and did not constitute a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The claims for return of commission payments were dismissed, as the referral agreements did not violate the Securities Act and provided a juristic reason for the payments.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against his insurer and a remediation contractor for allegedly defective flooring installation following a basement flood.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly assist him as a self-represented litigant, erred in taking a view of the property, improperly rejected evidence, and erred in finding a claim regarding a vapour barrier was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly accommodated the appellant without assuming the role of counsel, had the authority to take a view, appropriately exercised her discretion regarding evidence, and correctly applied the limitation period.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

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 appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding him $21,000 for breach of a flooring contract, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to find fraud, failing to award damages for a technical assault, and failing to award punitive damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of damages or findings of fact.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents and set off against outstanding costs orders owed to the appellant.