Saurabh Singhal

The respondent wife brought a motion under Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules to set aside or stay a default divorce order.

She argued that granting the divorce would prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings in India against the applicant husband regarding dowry harassment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the wife had adequate notice of the divorce proceedings but failed to file an Answer.

Applying the test for setting aside default judgments, the court concluded there was no arguable defence on the merits and insufficient evidence that the divorce would prejudice the foreign criminal litigation.

The appellant, TS Pharmaceuticals Ltd., appealed the dismissal of its motion for damages against the court-appointed Receiver, A. Farber & Partners Inc. TS alleged the Receiver failed to use "best efforts" to maintain a Health Canada cannabis licence, which lapsed, leading to the termination of a Share Purchase Agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Receiver had no positive obligation or authority to maintain the licence, nor could it have done so in the short timeframe between the SPA execution and licence expiry.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the purchaser against the Receiver for alleged breaches of an Asset Purchase Agreement, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the Receiver.

The Receiver claimed $134,188.17, while the purchaser argued for $60,000.

The court deducted the Receiver's own non-legal professional staff time and reduced the overall amount based on proportionality and reasonableness, fixing the costs payable by the purchaser at $105,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party purchaser sought damages or a $350,000 abatement of the purchase price, alleging the court-appointed Receiver breached an Asset Purchase Agreement and a Share Purchase Agreement by failing to act in good faith and use best efforts to preserve a cannabis license.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Receiver had no authority over the excluded cannabis assets under its appointment order, the purchaser failed to discover the license's expiry date during its own due diligence, and the Receiver fully complied with its contractual obligations to negotiate and assist with a change of control.