Superior Court of Justice

The debtors, Eureka 93 Inc. and related companies, filed a notice of intention to make a proposal under the BIA.

Two motions were heard: an unopposed motion by the debtors for an interim arrangement order under the Canada Business Corporations Act, which was granted; and an opposed motion by the noteholders (Dominion Capital LLC) seeking an order for document production relevant to an appraisal, cross-examination of Seann Poli, and examination of a representative of the first mortgagee, all in advance of the creditors' meeting to vote on the proposal.

The court dismissed the noteholders' request for examinations as premature, noting that the BIA provides mechanisms for investigation after the trustee's report or by adjourning the creditors' meeting.

However, the court ordered the debtor's appraiser to disclose and produce source documents used for the land appraisals, but declined to order disclosure for a business valuation under the BIA.

The defendants Jing Liu and Yu De Xing (the "Xing defendants") brought a motion to enforce a Third Party Offer to Settle dated July 4, 2017, which they accepted on February 15, 2020.

The plaintiffs and Third Party argued that a subsequent global offer to settle from January 2020 impliedly withdrew the earlier offer, or that the court should exercise discretion due to inadvertent error.

The court found the two offers to be fundamentally distinct and that the later offer did not impliedly withdraw the earlier one.

The motion to enforce the July 2017 Offer to Settle was granted, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties.

This motion concerned an application for judicial approval of a settlement for statutory accident benefits (SABS) for a catastrophically injured claimant who lacked capacity to instruct counsel.

The court expressed significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the proposed settlement amount, the fairness and applicability of the contingency fee agreement to a SABS claim, the claimant's capacity at the time of signing the fee agreement and various loans, and the absence of a proper management plan for the lump sum payment.

The court refused to approve the settlement as proposed and referred the matter to the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee for further input, remaining seized of the matter.

The Plaintiff sought to amend an existing litigation timetable due to COVID-19 disruptions.

The Defendant opposed remote examinations for discovery, argued for incomplete documentary production, and sought to bring a motion for security for costs.

The court ordered the delivery of sworn affidavits of documents, mandated remote examinations for discovery and mediation if requested, and directed that any motion for security for costs be brought after discoveries.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement for a minor's personal injury claim and a derivative Family Law Act claim.

The court initially declined approval due to concerns regarding the allocation of settlement funds between the minor and the litigation guardian, and the reasonableness of legal fees.

Following the submission of supplementary affidavits and a re-allocation of the settlement, the court approved the settlement, finding it to be in the minor plaintiff's best interest.

The order included specific directions for the payment of funds into court and the finalization of the draft order.

The parties separated and shared parenting of their child on a week-about basis.

The father relocated to the east end of the city and sought to enroll the child in a school near his new residence, while the mother remained in the west end and proposed a school near her home.

The court applied the principles for determining a child's choice of school, focusing on the child's best interests.

The court ordered that the child attend the school in the mother's catchment area, finding it would minimize the child's time in traffic and before/after school daycare given the parents' respective work schedules.

The plaintiffs sought interim orders to compel the sale of a property and non-party document disclosure, alleging oppression and fraud by the defendants.

The court applied the strong prima facie case test for the mandatory interlocutory injunction.

It found a strong prima facie case of oppression due to the defendants' breach of shareholder agreements, diversion of funds, and lack of credibility, evidenced by their non-compliance with previous court orders.

The court approved the plaintiffs' proposed sale of the property for $12 million over the defendants' $15 million offer, citing the plaintiffs' offer's certainty and the defendants' unreliability.

The court also granted the non-party production order.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion brought by Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited ("Metro") to strike paragraphs from Hillmond Investments Ltd.'s ("HIL") Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.

The motion was settled on consent, with the issue of costs deferred.

Metro sought $10,944.63 on a partial indemnity scale, while HIL argued for no costs.

The Master found that HIL's refusal to engage in discussions regarding amendments until the day before the motion necessitated the motion and was the primary factor contributing to the costs incurred.

Considering the proportionality and the conduct of the parties, the Master awarded Metro fixed costs of $4,000.

The plaintiff obtained default judgment against the corporate defendant and two officers.

One officer, Daniel Brewer, moved to set aside the default judgment against him, arguing he had no actual notice of the proceedings after selling his shares and his counsel's subsequent withdrawal.

The court found that Brewer did not receive notice of crucial steps in the litigation due to an incorrect address used by his former counsel, and that his reliance on counsel and a co-defendant's assurance was reasonable.

The absence of actual notice, not due to Brewer's fault, was deemed a fundamental procedural flaw.

The motion to set aside the default judgment and related orders against Brewer was allowed.

The plaintiff sought an urgent ex parte Mareva injunction and other ancillary injunctive relief against the defendants, alleging that the defendant Tami Kone, a former bookkeeper, had fraudulently issued cheques to herself totaling over $312,000 from the company's account.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, along with a genuine risk of asset dissipation.

However, the court denied the requested ancillary orders for registering PMSI liens and retaining/imaging a personal laptop, citing lack of authority and privacy concerns.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to set aside ex parte interim orders, obtain joint custody, shared parenting, and permit the children to remain in Tunisia, citing cultural values and perceived lower COVID-19 risks.

The applicant mother had previously obtained ex parte orders for interim sole custody and the return of the children to Toronto, following the respondent's refusal to return them after a vacation.

The court found the children's habitual residence to be Toronto, as conceded by the respondent, and dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no justification to set aside or vary the prior orders.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to Toronto and scheduled a case conference.

The Applicant sought a temporary parenting order for increased unsupervised access to his three-year-old son, Rudi, which had been limited by the Respondent due to COVID-19 concerns and the vulnerability of her co-resident parents.

The court, considering the child's best interests, the evolving public health context, and previous judicial endorsements, granted the Applicant's motion for increased parenting time and unsupervised visits, emphasizing that the child's need for parental contact outweighed the Respondent's parents' objections, which were deemed rooted in mistrust rather than evidence-based health concerns.

The applicant, an Aboriginal man with a lengthy criminal record and mental health issues, sought a review of his detention order under ss. 520 and 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the justice of the peace erred in rejecting a proposed surety's credibility based on unproven information.

Conducting a de novo review, the court provided a detailed analysis of the newly enacted s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code, which requires particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal and vulnerable accused.

Applying these principles contextually to the applicant's history of breaches and the proposed release plan, the court concluded that detention was not necessary on the secondary or tertiary grounds and ordered the applicant's release on strict conditions, including electronic monitoring.

The applicant mother sought orders to implement parenting schedules and related relief, including police enforcement, due to the respondent father's alleged withholding of their child, EM, and non-compliance with agreements.

The father brought an irregular cross-motion for temporary custody.

The court found the father engaged in parental alienation tactics, consistently disregarded agreements, and failed to support the child's relationship with the mother.

The child, diagnosed with ADHD and a learning disability, exhibited poor school attendance and academic performance while in the father's care.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion and granted the mother temporary sole custody, sole decision-making authority for EM's healthcare and schooling, and ordered reunification therapy, with police enforcement of the custody order.

Class counsel moved for approval of an interim fee award and disbursements following a $250,000 settlement with the Bank of Montreal defendants in a class action.

The court reviewed the requested fees of $62,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $119,800.83, plus taxes.

Applying the factors for assessing the reasonableness of class counsel fees, the court found the request fair and reasonable and approved the fee award.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking to prohibit the applicant father from taking their 9-year-old child on a planned cottage vacation with extended family due to COVID-19 health risks.

The mother argued the father's plan to merge three households into a social circle was non-compliant with provincial guidelines and posed an unnecessary risk to the child and herself, given her asthma.

The father opposed, asserting his plan was safe and compliant.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding the father's social circle plan lacked sufficient information regarding all participants' social contacts and failed to account for the separated parents' need to include each other in their household bubbles before expanding.

The court concluded the potential health risks outweighed the benefits of the vacation, particularly considering the mother's heightened vulnerability due to asthma.

The applicants, Dyllan Ali and Diquan Taylor, facing firearms and drug trafficking charges, brought a motion for disclosure of the full contents of disciplinary and criminal investigation files relating to Constable Sean Osborne, a key police witness.

The court dismissed the request for disclosure of files related to past disciplinary findings, citing principles of finality and lack of demonstrated likely relevance.

However, the court granted the request for disclosure of investigative files related to Constable Osborne's outstanding criminal charges for assault and obstruction of justice, finding them "obviously relevant" to the applicants' Charter application and trial, particularly concerning the officer's credibility and potential propensity for misconduct.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing that the termination clause in his employment contract was unenforceable.

The court found the termination clause violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000, by improperly combining notice and severance pay and by contracting around the "willful misconduct" standard for just cause, rendering the entire contract void.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the plaintiff four months of common law reasonable notice, plus benefits, less amounts already paid and mitigated earnings, but declined to award a discretionary bonus.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought full costs after an uncontested trial, citing the respondent's bad faith conduct, her success on all claims, and beating her offer to settle.

The court awarded full recovery costs of $217,229.25, finding the respondent acted in bad faith through persistent non-disclosure, obstruction, and asset concealment.

A portion of these costs, related to support issues, was made enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, while costs for a preservation motion related to family property were not.

The applicants, Dawn and Scott McIntosh, sought to schedule a motion in Toronto to stay an action (the "2020 Oshawa Action") brought by HomeLife Superior Realty Inc. in Oshawa.

McIntosh argued the Oshawa action should have been a counterclaim in the existing Toronto action and sought to dismiss it as frivolous or an abuse of process.

The court declined to schedule the motion in Toronto, emphasizing Rule 37.03(1) which presumptively requires motions to be heard in the region where the affected proceeding was commenced.

The court found no reason to deviate from this rule, noting the Oshawa action was not improperly brought, there was a history of litigation in Oshawa related to the real estate transaction, and McIntosh was already involved in other Oshawa proceedings.