Corporate/Commercial Law - SCJ

This decision resolves a dispute over the distribution of net proceeds from the sale of the Boundary Lake Property, an asset of Maple Pond Farm Limited.

The plaintiff, Gordon Vellenga, sought equal division of the proceeds between himself and Peter Boersma, the two shareholders.

The defendants, including Weijs Investment Corp., sought priority reimbursement for various claims before any distribution.

The court found most of the defendants’ claims barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, or limitations, except for property taxes paid on the property.

The court ordered equal division of the proceeds, with a credit to Weijs Investment for property taxes paid.

The decision addresses motions for a representative order and for an interlocutory injunction in the context of the de-rostering of patients from a community health centre in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The plaintiff, Michael Da Prat, sought to represent both subscribers and non-subscribers of the Group Health Centre, challenging the de-rostering as a breach of contract, a violation of the Human Rights Code, and as oppressive conduct under corporate statutes.

The court granted a representative order only for the breach of contract claim on behalf of subscribers, denied it for other claims and for non-subscribers, and refused the interlocutory injunction, finding no strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.

The applicant, E. Automotive Inc., sought to unwind a transaction under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act, RSO 1990, c B.16, after its shareholding in Autocorp.

AI.

Inc. was diluted below 33 1/3% through the issuance of shares to Blossom Street Ventures.

The court found that E. Automotive Inc. did not have a reasonably held expectation that its shareholding would not be diluted below a certain threshold, nor that shares would not be issued below market value for the purpose of affecting a vote.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered whether to dismiss a bankruptcy application brought by Bioventus, LLC against Trindent Consulting Management International Inc. under section 43(7) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, in light of Trindent’s prior U.S. Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The court found that Canadian law allows for concurrent insolvency proceedings and that the statutory remedies under the BIA are not property of the debtor’s estate.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the bankruptcy application may proceed.

This endorsement grants an unopposed application by RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust and related entities for the appointment of FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as receiver over the assets of the RioCan-HBC joint venture entities.

The court reviews the legal test for appointing a receiver under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, referencing relevant case law and statutory factors.

The receivership is found to be just and convenient in light of the joint venture’s financial distress, the failure of restructuring efforts, and the need to preserve and maximize value for stakeholders.

The order authorizes the receiver to borrow up to $20 million and provides for allocation of costs and a mechanism for secured lenders to terminate the receivership as to their collateral.

The court considered whether documents prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), including the "Bowen Memo" and related materials, were protected by solicitor-client or litigation privilege in the context of a dispute over the transition of audit responsibilities from PwC to Deloitte for Bondfield Construction Company Limited.

The court found that the documents were not privileged and ordered their production, as the dominant purpose of their creation was not for seeking legal advice or in contemplation of litigation, but rather to summarize audit procedures.

The Applicant, NP Health Clinic Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Respondent, 2456192 Ontario Inc., from terminating its commercial lease and evicting it for alleged failure to obtain adequate liability insurance as required by the lease.

The court found that the Landlord’s Notice of Default did not comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act because it failed to specify the particular deficiencies in the Tenant’s insurance.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, subject to the Landlord serving a compliant Notice of Default and the Tenant being given an opportunity to remedy any specified deficiencies.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to remove all defendants except Diamond & Diamond Lawyers LLP from the action, or alternatively to stay the action against those defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs’ pleadings provided a basis for claims against the individual and professional corporation defendants, and that joinder was permissible under Rule 5.02(2)(c) due to doubt as to the proper party from whom relief may be obtained.

The court also found that the inclusion of these parties would not unduly complicate or delay the proceedings or cause undue prejudice.

The applicant, Vivian Dubrofsky, sought interim injunctive relief under section 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) to restrain her mother, Maryka Weisz, from withdrawing funds from Art Tile Limited except for ordinary course expenses, pending final disposition.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried and the applicant met the evidentiary threshold, she failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court ordered that the Westmore Property not be encumbered and that certain trust funds remain in trust, but otherwise dismissed the requested relief.

The decision resolves competing applications regarding the ownership and directorship of 2761499 Ontario Inc. (“276”) and related financial claims among parties involved in several investment companies.

The court finds that Gurvinder Singh Saini and Najinder Garcha are the only directors and shareholders of 276, rejecting Minkle Mittal’s claim to ownership or directorship.

The court also dismisses Mittal and Golden Freight Forwarding and Marketing Inc.’s counter-application for relief regarding other companies, finding no evidentiary basis for their claims.

Costs are awarded to Saini and Garcha.

The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) sought a court order validating its by-laws and articles, which had been amended over a decade without compliance with the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (CNCA) due to erroneous legal advice.

The court found that the CFPC had failed to hold required separate class votes for membership changes, rendering its constating documents improperly enacted.

The Resident Doctors of Canada, while generally supporting the application, sought restoration of voting rights for family medicine residents.

The court held that section 288(4) of the CNCA provided broad remedial powers to validate the documents and to reclassify family medicine residents as voting members.

The application was granted, validating the CFPC’s by-laws and articles nunc pro tunc and restoring voting rights to family medicine residents.

This decision concerns motions brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and related applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for interim relief in their restructuring proceedings.

The court addresses requests for approval of interim distributions, payment of direct costs, application of deferred payments for working capital, and approval of certain activities of the Monitor.

The court grants the requested relief, finding it necessary to maintain liquidity and continue the wind-down process, and holds that the proposed mechanisms are equitable and consistent with the CCAA’s remedial objectives.

This decision addresses a motion by the plaintiffs for production and directions regarding claims of privilege over thousands of documents and answers to questions refused on discovery in a complex, multi-party commercial litigation.

The court reviews the legal principles governing solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege, and common interest privilege, and applies them to various categories of documents and questions.

The court provides detailed directions on the production of documents, the sufficiency of evidence to support privilege claims, and the process for resolving ongoing disputes about privilege.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Bennington Financial Corp. against 2724112 Ontario Inc. and Christopher Graham for amounts owing under a commercial equipment lease.

The court found that the defendants' defences were fully answered by the plaintiff's evidence, including admissions of payment and execution of the lease, and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court reserved on interest and costs, inviting written submissions.

The court considered the appropriate costs order following an application in which the applicant, Kristine McGinn, obtained injunctive relief against the respondents, including Stephen Bleeker and Assurance Home Care.

The court determined that costs should be payable forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the applicant’s request for substantial indemnity costs and her request that costs be awarded against Mr. Bleeker personally.

The court fixed costs at $47,769.39, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid within 30 days.

The court considered a motion for summary judgment in a commercial dispute where the plaintiff, Profit Professionals Inc., sought damages for breach of contract and on a quantum meruit basis.

The defendant, Tiger Drylac Canada Inc., argued that the plaintiff's claims were barred by a two-year limitation period.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the discoverability of the plaintiff's loss for the breach of contract claim, but granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's quantum meruit claim as statute-barred.

The Applicants sought and were granted several orders in a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding, including approval of a Remaining Securitized Assets Order, a sale and vesting order for Dixie Truck Parts Inc. (Ontario and Delaware), an omnibus distribution order, and a sealing order.

The Court found that the sale process was reasonable, the related party transaction safeguards were sufficient, and the proposed orders were fair and reasonable.

The Court also addressed the importance of timely opposition to relief and the need for efficiency and comity in cross-border insolvency proceedings.

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 decision concerns Parkland Corporation’s motion for interlocutory relief to enforce negative covenants in a lease requiring Caledon Fuels Inc. to operate a gas station as an Ultramar station with fuel supplied by Parkland.

The court grants Parkland leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and issues an injunction against Caledon and the purchaser, 16408117 Canada Inc., from breaching the lease.

The ruling addresses the legal tests for a CPL and interlocutory injunction, the effect of actual notice of a lease under the Land Titles Act, and the balance of convenience between the parties.

The decision addresses a motion by the defendant, S&P Data Corporation, to compel answers to four questions refused by the plaintiff’s affiant, Allison Drennan, during cross-examination on affidavits filed in a summary judgment motion.

The court reviews the proper scope of cross-examination on affidavits, the relevance of the questions, and the production of the CECRA application.

The court orders the plaintiff to answer the refused questions and to produce a redacted copy of the CECRA application, finding the information relevant to the issues of good faith and the merits of the action.