SCJ 2025

The Monitor, FTI Consulting Canada Inc., brought a motion for an approval and vesting order in respect of the Purchased Assets and the sale thereof to Vault or an affiliate pursuant to the Rifco Asset Purchase Agreement, and for a stay extension order.

The Court approved the Rifco APA and the AVO, finding the process reasonable, the requirements of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act satisfied, and the transaction in the best interests of stakeholders.

The stay extension was also granted.

The plaintiff, Syed Bahauddin, was employed as a chef at the defendants’ restaurant for over 20 years before being dismissed without cause.

After settling a wrongful dismissal action, the defendants failed to pay the full judgment.

The plaintiff sought and was granted an order requiring the garnishee, 1436318 Ontario Ltd., to pay the outstanding amount.

The court found the mortgage between related parties to be valid and enforceable, rejected claims that it was a sham, and concluded that the equities favoured the plaintiff.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The court approved a settlement agreement in a class action concerning losses suffered by investors in a syndicated mortgage loan promoted by Fortress Real Developments Inc. and Fortress Real Capital Inc. The settlement, reached with FMP Mortgage Investments Inc. and related defendants, provides for a $3,000,000 payment to class members, representing a substantial portion of the available insurance.

The court also certified the action as a class proceeding for the purposes of the settlement, approved class counsel fees, and made ancillary orders to facilitate the administration of the settlement and protect the parties involved.

The trustee in bankruptcy, Goldhar & Associates Ltd., brought a motion to annul Qui Thieu Mac’s discharge from bankruptcy, arguing that the discharge was granted due to inadvertence in failing to file a notice of opposition.

The court found that there was a bona fide error, that opposition would have been filed but for the error, and that a discharge hearing would likely have led to a different result given the facts proven under section 173(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the absolute discharge and granted the trustee’s motion.

The court approved a Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement regarding the administration of syndicated mortgage loans and projects affiliated with Fortress Real Developments Inc. The Trustee, FAAN Mortgage Administrators Inc., sought approval to enter into the agreement, direct payment of the settlement, and authorize distribution to investors.

The court found the settlement appropriate, noting no better alternatives existed and that the agreement provided certainty and at least a nominal recovery for investors after significant delay.

The applicant, Harmur Investments Limited, sought a vesting order declaring that it had acquired, through adverse possession, title to two parcels of land in the Township of Greater Madawaska.

The court found that Harmur had not acquired title to the parcel known as "the Triangle" but had acquired title to the parcel known as "the Boathouse Parcel." The decision provides a detailed analysis of the requirements for adverse possession under Ontario law, including the necessity of actual possession, intention to exclude, and effective exclusion of the true owner.

This endorsement concerns a motion by FAAN Mortgage Administrators Inc., as Court-appointed Trustee of Building & Development Mortgages Canada Inc. (BDMC), for approval of its 30th and 31st Reports, its fees and disbursements, a sealing order for certain confidential exhibits, and authorization to distribute the Fortress Holdback and Future Fortress Amounts to investors.

The motion was unopposed.

The court approved the Trustee’s activities and fees, granted the sealing order, and authorized the distribution to investors, finding these steps appropriate and necessary to protect investor interests and confidential information.

The court considered a motion by the Defendants to strike portions of the Plaintiffs’ amended claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim for an easement for drainage.

The court found that while the Plaintiffs’ pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the easement claim.

The Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to define the easement with adequate specificity or to show that an easement of necessity or by common intention existed at the time of severance.

The claim for an easement for drainage was summarily dismissed.

The decision addresses three motions in a civil action: the plaintiffs’ motion to extend and validate service of their statement of claim, the defendants’ motion for a status hearing, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The court validates service on the individual defendants, finds that limitation period arguments raise triable issues, and concludes that both parties contributed to the delay.

The court grants the plaintiffs’ motion for a status hearing, dismisses the defendants’ motion to dismiss for delay, and sets a timetable for the action to proceed to trial.

The court considered an application under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act to set aside litigation loan agreements entered into by Chadwick Randy Kelly (by his litigation guardian and attorney for property) with BridgePoint Financial Services Limited Partnership I. The loans, used to purchase and retrofit a home after a catastrophic injury, had grown to over $1.1 million due to compounding interest.

The applicants argued the loans were excessive, harsh, and unconscionable.

The court found that, given the risk profile, the lack of alternative financing, and the terms of the agreements, the loans were not excessive or unconscionable under the Act.

The application was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction to hear a family law application involving parties with significant international connections, including property in the Bahamas and Spain, and a prior divorce proceeding commenced in Spain.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction over all claims, including divorce, support, decision-making responsibility, and property/equalization, due to the real and substantial connection between the parties and Ontario, particularly as the applicant and one child were ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The respondent's motion to stay or dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis of forum non conveniens was dismissed.

This decision addresses interim parenting arrangements and school registration for the child of Jason Kyle Sheedy and Karen Nadine Shackelton following their separation.

The court considered the best interests of the child, the parties' conflicting evidence, and the need for stability.

The court ordered that the child be enrolled at Caradoc Public School and set out a detailed interim parenting schedule, balancing time between both parents and emphasizing the importance of following court orders.

The applicant father sought a "chasing order" for declaratory relief that the child, F.K., is habitually resident in Brampton, Ontario, and for the child's return from Poland under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Hague Convention.

The court found that F.K. was wrongfully retained in Poland by the mother and ordered the child's immediate return to Ontario.

The decision reviews the legal principles of habitual residence, wrongful retention, and the best interests of the child, and addresses the credibility of the parties' evidence.

The court considered whether the plaintiffs could post security for costs by way of a third-ranking charge against real property, rather than in cash or by letter of credit.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient sworn evidence regarding the value and equity of the property, nor had they demonstrated that the proposed security would be a reliable and accessible source of funds for the defendants.

The court declined to approve the third-ranking mortgage as security and ordered that security be posted in an acceptable form, such as cash or a letter of credit, extending the deadline for posting security by one week.

The court found Ryan Richard Cunneen not criminally responsible (NCR) for the offences of unlawful act manslaughter and mischief, following a psychiatric assessment and hearing.

The decision reviews the legal and medical standards for NCR under section 16 of the Criminal Code, the evidence of Mr. Cunneen’s longstanding schizoaffective disorder, and the expert opinion that his psychosis rendered him incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions.

The court accepted the parties’ consent to the NCR verdict after confirming Mr. Cunneen’s informed and voluntary agreement.

The court considered costs following a motion by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs’ action for delay and breaches of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the motion to dismiss was denied, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants $4,000 in costs, citing the plaintiffs’ repeated non-compliance with court orders and litigation delay.

The decision discusses the principles governing costs, including the court’s discretion, the impact of blameworthy conduct, and the effect of settlement offers.