Sara-Ann Wilson

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference following a trial before Justice E. Allen on March 7, 2024.

The charges arose from an incident at a wave pool on July 30, 2022, where the appellant allegedly touched a 13-year-old complainant's genital area over her bathing suit.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) insufficient reasons regarding mens rea; (2) improper admission of post-offence conduct in videotaped statements under s. 715.1 and failure to consider alternative inferences; and (3) improper credibility contest.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court found the trial judge's reasons were factually and legally sufficient in context, the videotaped statements were properly admitted, and the trial judge did not reverse the onus of proof or improperly engage in a credibility contest.

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restructuring plan lacked substance, noted a significant loss of confidence in management due to past conduct and outdated property valuations, and determined that the collaborative receivership approach proposed by the majority of secured creditors was more appropriate.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 Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement on costs and minor revisions to its January 26, 2024 disposition of an appeal and cross-appeal.

The primary issue was whether Buduchnist Credit Union Limited (BCU) breached a Mareva Order and the consequences.

Trade Capital Finance Corp. (Trade Capital) was substantially successful on the breach and remedy issues, leading to BCU losing priority as a secured creditor and being unable to immediately enforce its judgment.

The court also addressed BCU's request for minor factual revisions to the previous reasons, adopting some and rejecting others.

This appeal concerned the breadth of the court's jurisdiction to address a breach of a Mareva order and abuse of process.

The appellant, Trade Capital Finance Corp., appealed a distribution order in favour of the respondent, Buduchnist Credit Union Limited (BCU).

BCU had made advances to clients in breach of a Mareva order and subsequently obtained consent judgments.

The motion judge found BCU breached the Mareva order, disallowed its secured claim for post-Mareva advances, but allowed it to enforce as an unsecured judgment creditor.

Trade Capital argued the enforcement should be delayed.

BCU cross-appealed its loss of priority.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in limiting his discretion.

It held that the court has broad inherent jurisdiction to respond to a breach of its orders, including delaying enforcement of claims arising from such breaches.

The Court allowed Trade Capital's appeal, ordering that BCU's judgment enforcement for post-Mareva advances be delayed until Trade Capital's action is determined, with both parties collecting pari passu if Trade Capital succeeds.

The cross-appeal by BCU was dismissed.

The issue of specific Woodland Property advances was remitted for further adjudication.

Nanopay Corporation, a startup providing embedded payment solutions, filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The company moved for an extension of time to file a proposal, authority to borrow under a DIP (Debtor-in-Possession) credit facility, and approval to engage a Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO).

The court granted the motion, approving the DIP Term Sheet, appointing the CRO, and extending the proposal filing deadline to August 2, 2023, finding that the company acted in good faith and with due diligence, and no creditor would be materially prejudiced.

An interim limit was placed on initial DIP advances.

Trade Capital Finance Corp. (TC) and Buduchnist Credit Union Limited (BCU) filed opposing motions in an insolvency appeal.

TC sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a lower court's final disposition order concerning the distribution of receivership proceeds, arguing the order allowed BCU to enforce judgments arising from transactions in breach of a Mareva order.

BCU sought to lift the automatic stay of proceedings and security for costs.

The Court of Appeal granted TC's motions for extension of time and leave to appeal, finding the appeal prima facie meritorious and raising issues of general importance regarding Mareva orders and creditor enforcement in insolvency.

The court denied BCU's motions to lift the stay and for security for costs, concluding that the BIA governed the appeal and that lifting the stay would render TC's appeal moot, and that security for costs was not fitting given BCU was the applicant below and TC's insolvency stemmed from the alleged fraud.

This appeal concerned the sale of Lash Point, a family cottage property owned by a non-profit corporation (LPAC).

Family members were divided between "Remainers" (who wanted to keep the property) and "Departers" (who wanted to sell their interests).

A lower court initially ordered a staged buy-out, but due to delays, a motion judge later approved an en bloc sale of the entire property to third parties, reversing the original plan.

The appellants (Remainers and LPAC) appealed, arguing the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to vary the original order and erred in approving the sale without satisfying the principles for sale approval in receivership contexts (Soundair principles).

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's jurisdiction to vary the order but found that the sale approval was flawed as it did not meet the Soundair principles, particularly regarding efforts to obtain the best price and the integrity of the sales process.

The appeal was allowed, the sale order set aside, and the Receiver was directed to develop a proper sales process for the entire property.

This endorsement provides reasons for granting an initial order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to Trinity Ravine Community Inc., a registered charitable organization developing a senior citizens' life lease community project.

The applicant faced insolvency due to escalating construction costs and demands for deposit refunds from purchasers.

The court found the applicant met the CCAA requirements, including insolvency and good faith, and that a CCAA process was appropriate despite it being a real estate development, given its charitable purpose and the potential for maximizing creditor recoveries through a dual-track sale and investment solicitation process (SISP).

An initial administration charge was also granted to secure professional fees.

The court-appointed Receiver brought a motion for directions regarding an offer to purchase a large Muskoka property en bloc.

The original buy-out order directed the Receiver to sever the property to allow departing members of the corporation to be paid their share while remaining members kept a retained parcel.

After four years of delays and significant expenses, the severance process was incomplete.

The court found it had jurisdiction to vary the original order due to materially changed circumstances.

The court directed the Receiver to halt the severance process and accept the en bloc purchase agreement, which had the support of the vast majority of stakeholders and represented fair market value.

The moving parties (debtors) sought leave to appeal under s. 193(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act from an order approving a court-appointed receiver's proposed sale process and list prices for five commercial properties.

The debtors argued the motion judge failed to apply the correct legal test (the Soundair test) and was unduly deferential to the receiver's business judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the motion judge had implicitly applied the Soundair test, the proposed appeal lacked prima facie merit, did not raise an issue of general importance, and would unduly hinder the progress of the receivership proceedings.