Robert S. Choi

The debtors filed Notices of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

They brought a motion seeking administrative consolidation of their proceedings, approval of DIP financing with a super priority charge, administration and D&O charges, approval of a stalking horse sale process, and an extension of time to file a proposal.

The court granted all the requested relief, finding that the DIP financing and charges were necessary for the debtors to continue operations and that the stalking horse sale process was fair, transparent, and the best alternative to maximize value for stakeholders.

The moving party law firm sought permission to withdraw as counsel of record for the plaintiffs mid-trial due to non-payment of legal fees and an alleged breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship.

The clients opposed the motion, arguing that withdrawal would cause significant prejudice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that despite a prior consent agreement, the court retained discretion to refuse withdrawal.

The court held that the clients would suffer serious prejudice as it was not feasible for them to self-represent in complex commercial litigation, they had already paid substantial fees, and the law firm held security on the clients' properties.

The plaintiffs invested $1.25 million USD in the defendants' rehabilitative shoe insert business, Barefoot Science, based on representations that the company owned its intellectual property.

The plaintiffs later discovered the principal defendant secretly owned the patents and had forged documents to protect his reversionary interest.

The court found the defendants liable for deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, and oppression.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $2.2 million USD, varied the security agreements to capture the intellectual property, and declared the forged agreements void.

The moving party sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the landlord from dealing with commercial property and sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation in a dispute over whether an agreement to lease remained binding after conditional periods and alleged waivers.

The court held there was a serious question to be tried on enforceability, including estoppel arising from the landlord's conduct, timing of waiver under a tenant diligence clause, and the landlord's delayed reliance on a financial-condition termination clause.

The court also found a serious question to be tried regarding specific performance because the property was arguably unique for the intended automobile dealership use.

Injunctive relief was continued only until the disposition of an expedited summary judgment motion, subject to $150,000 security and expanded undertakings as to damages.

Leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation was refused as unnecessary in light of the injunction.

Following dismissal of two applications involving a dispute between dental professional corporations and issues arising from arbitration decisions and lease forfeiture, the court determined costs.

The applicant had sought leave to appeal arbitral decisions and relief from forfeiture of a lease but was unsuccessful.

The court applied Rule 57 and proportionality principles in fixing fair and reasonable costs rather than simply awarding actual costs incurred.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondent corporation for both applications, while the landlord respondent received substantial indemnity costs due to contractual indemnification provisions and the applicant’s conduct in unnecessarily involving the landlord.

Costs were fixed with reductions to claimed hours where the court found the time excessive.

The applicant sought an order under sections 4 and 11 of the Solicitors Act to refer a solicitor’s account for assessment more than twelve months after it had been rendered and paid.

The applicant argued that he only later became aware of the ability to challenge the account and that the account was excessive after reviewing time dockets.

The court held that the statutory deadline had expired and that the applicant failed to demonstrate “special circumstances” justifying an extension.

For paid accounts, the court emphasized that relief is limited to cases involving fraud or gross misconduct, which were not alleged or supported by the record.

The application was therefore dismissed.

Following a prior costs endorsement, self-represented respondents sought leave to file a reply and requested reconsideration of the court’s costs determination.

The underlying application sought a declaration regarding the validity of several leases and had been dismissed, resulting in success for the respondents.

The self-represented respondents argued they should receive compensation for time spent preparing and attending the proceeding.

Applying Rule 57.04(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles in Fong v. Chan, the court held that costs for self-represented litigants are only appropriate where the work performed is equivalent to that ordinarily done by counsel.

The court found the respondents’ activities did not meet that threshold and declined to alter the previous costs award.

The applicants purchased a campsite property and subsequently sought to significantly increase the rent for several cabin owners who leased land on the site.

When the cabin owners challenged the increase at the Landlord and Tenant Board, the applicants brought an application to the Superior Court seeking to declare the leases null and void and to evict the respondents, arguing the leases violated the Planning Act and the Statute of Frauds.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the cabins were residential units within a land lease community under the Residential Tenancies Act, and therefore the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters regarding the termination of the tenancies.

The appellants appealed an order granting an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjournment was an interlocutory order and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction.

Costs of $700 were awarded to the respondent, reduced due to the late filing of materials.