Sanjeev Mitra

The Receiver brought a motion to approve a sale transaction arising from a court-ordered sale process.

The respondent debtors brought a competing motion seeking to redeem the assigned debt and discharge the Receiver.

The debtors waited until after the sale process was completed and a successful bidder chosen before seeking to redeem.

The court found that allowing redemption at this late stage would undermine the integrity of the receivership process, noting the debtors failed to provide unconditional proof of funds.

The debtors' motion to redeem was dismissed, and the Receiver's proposed transaction was approved.

The applicant, a mortgagee under a matured and defaulted Vendor Take Back mortgage, applied for the appointment of a court-appointed receiver over a commercial property in Ottawa.

The respondent mortgagor opposed the application, disputing the validity and amount of the debt in separate ongoing proceedings in Toronto.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of insolvency to engage the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and no underlying proceeding to support an interlocutory receivership under the Courts of Justice Act.

Additionally, the court noted that receivership is an extraordinary remedy, the mortgage lacked a contractual receivership clause, and there was sufficient equity in the property to protect the debt.

The applicants, a group of real estate development entities (Ashcroft Homes Group), sought to extend an initial Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) stay of proceedings to facilitate a restructuring.

Secured creditors, representing 84% of the total secured debt, opposed the extension and instead moved for the appointment of interim receivers.

The court found the applicants' restructuring plan lacked substance, noted a significant loss of confidence in management due to past conduct and outdated property valuations, and determined that the collaborative receivership approach proposed by the majority of secured creditors was more appropriate.

The motion to extend the CCAA stay was dismissed, and the motions for the appointment of receivers were granted.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of the corporate and individual respondents due to undisputed defaults under security documents, with an outstanding debt exceeding $12 million.

Despite multiple adjournments granted by the court to allow the respondents to secure refinancing, no credible evidence of a firm financing commitment materialized, and the respondents failed to cooperate with the court-appointed monitor.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver, citing the respondents' lack of transparency and repeated failures to meet payment obligations or secure alternative financing.

The Trustee in bankruptcy sought court approval of its Amended Statement of Receipts and Disbursements.

The bankrupt objected, arguing that the fees of the Trustee and its counsel were excessive, particularly regarding time spent communicating with her children about the sale of a co-owned property and dealing with her complaints to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

The court found the fees to be fair and reasonable, noting the complexities involved and that the complaints were dismissed.

The Statement of Receipts and Disbursements was approved.

The Royal Bank of Canada initiated an application for receivership against Peace Bridge Duty Free Inc. (PBDF) due to lease defaults, leading to the appointment of a monitor to facilitate a resolution with its landlord, Buffalo & Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority.

After a year without resolution, the Landlord moved to lift the stay on proceedings, arguing PBDF failed to pay "normal rent" as required by the Appointment Order.

The court declined to immediately lift the stay, finding the term "normal rent" in the Appointment Order ambiguous given the prolonged period of reduced payments due to COVID-19 restrictions.

The court ordered mandatory mediation between the Landlord and Tenant by March 31, 2023, to facilitate a business resolution, requiring the Tenant to provide a new proposal with financial information.

Further directions will be provided post-mediation.

Following a judgment allowing appeals and cross-appeals in part, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, ordering Charles Sr. to pay Diana $50,000, Charles Jr. to pay Diana $15,000, Lisa to pay Charles Jr. $15,000, and Ford to pay Lisa $15,000.

All additional requests for costs were dismissed.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment that awarded his bankrupt wife an equalization payment, lump sum spousal support, and costs.

The wife's former lawyers also appealed an order requiring the assessment of their accounts and a personal costs award against them.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the equalization payment because the wife lacked capacity to assert the claim after her bankruptcy, and setting aside the assessment of the lawyers' accounts.

However, the Court upheld the lump sum spousal support award and the costs awards, including the personal costs award against the wife's former lawyer for acting in bad faith and running up costs without reasonable cause.

The moving party sought leave to represent three closely held corporate defendants in a banking and receivership action arising from defaulted film production financing and related tax credits.

The court applied the test for lay representation of a corporation, focusing on authorization, connection to the corporations, ability to comprehend the litigation, access to justice, and whether the proposed representative would act responsibly.

Although the court expressed concern about the moving party's lack of objectivity, allegations against counsel and judges, and his apparent wish to relitigate prior matters, it found his conduct had not yet reached the level that would disqualify him.

Leave was therefore granted on a conditional, without prejudice basis because the corporations lacked funds to retain counsel and would otherwise be left without representation.

A shareholder and creditor of a bankrupt corporation sought an order restraining the trustee in bankruptcy from selling the estate’s interest in a lawsuit and requested authorization under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to continue the action on behalf of the estate.

The trustee had received an offer from a secured creditor to purchase the estate’s interest in the litigation and conducted a process inviting competing bids from creditors.

The moving creditor declined to submit a competing bid but sought a s. 38 assignment to pursue the claim himself.

The court held that the trustee acted reasonably in exposing the asset to the market to maximize recovery for creditors and that no basis existed to interfere with the trustee’s decision.

The motion was dismissed and the trustee was authorized to complete the sale of the cause of action.

The bankrupt applied for a discharge from her first bankruptcy, which the trustee opposed due to issues relating to mortgage financing placed on her home prior to bankruptcy.

The bankrupt filed extensive materials complaining about the trustee's administration of the estate, particularly regarding the resolution of her ex-husband's claims.

The court found that a discharge hearing was not the appropriate forum to address the bankrupt's complaints against the trustee.

Noting the bankrupt's extraordinary rehabilitation efforts, the court granted an immediate absolute discharge.

A lender brought a motion seeking judgment under loan guarantees, possession of mortgaged property, and leave to issue a writ of possession following default under a standstill agreement and related loan documents.

The respondents challenged the procedure, service of demand, jurisdiction of the Commercial List, and compliance with notice requirements under the Mortgages Act.

The court found no material facts in dispute and held that proceeding by application was appropriate under Rule 14.05(3)(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court determined that the guarantees were enforceable, notice requirements had been satisfied, and the applicant was entitled to possession and related remedies.

Judgment was granted for the indebtedness together with possession, a writ of possession, and costs.

An investigative receiver sought court approval of its reports, activities, and fees incurred during an investigation into the financial affairs of a respondent corporation connected to bankrupt companies operating retirement homes.

The court found the receiver’s mandate report complied with the appointment order and approved the report and the activities described in it.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the motion seeking approval of further receiver and counsel fees, arguing proportionality concerns and potential insolvency.

The court granted the adjournment on fairness grounds, allowing the respondent to file objections to the requested fees, while extending the receiver’s mandate.

The court also permitted the respondent to provide previously omitted bank statements to the receiver but held the receiver need not amend its report to account for them.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order appointing an investigative receiver over it.

The moving party argued the motion judge erred by not first finding evidence of fraud or dissipation of assets.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge applied the correct test under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and that the appointment was just and convenient given the interconnectedness of the moving party with bankrupt companies and the flow of funds between them.

The test for leave to appeal was not met.