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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 plaintiff lien claimants brought a motion for judgment following the defendants' default on a settlement agreement in a construction lien reference.

The first mortgagee, Pillar, sought the return of funds it had advanced that were held in trust by plaintiff's counsel.

The Master granted judgment to the lien claimants, finding they were entitled to enforce the settlement agreement upon default.

The Master dismissed Pillar's claim to the trust funds, holding that the funds were advanced to support the settlement without any escrow agreement in Pillar's favour and were therefore available to satisfy the judgment.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions in a civil action while the plaintiffs brought a motion to amend the statement of claim.

During the hearing, the parties did not address whether the defendants intended their summary judgment motions to apply to the relief sought in any amended pleading should the amendment be granted.

The court directed counsel to arrange a brief appearance or provide written submissions addressing this procedural issue.

The endorsement addresses scheduling and clarification of the scope of the summary judgment motions.