3 total
Motion to lift bankruptcy stay denied; creditor's claims of constructive trust and fraud lacked merit.
The moving party creditor sought to lift the stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to continue two civil actions against the bankrupt.
The creditor alleged the bankrupt owed fiduciary obligations, that the loaned funds were subject to a constructive trust, and that the bankrupt made fraudulent misrepresentations.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the civil actions had little prospect of success as the debt was a standard unsecured loan governed by a promissory note.
The court also found that lifting the stay would prejudice other unsecured creditors and delay the administration of the estate.
The court settled the terms of an order removing counsel, mandating separate representation without imposing a retention deadline.
This case conference endorsement addresses the terms of an order following a successful motion by the plaintiffs to remove the defendants’ lawyers of record.
The parties could not agree on two terms: whether the order should specify that each defendant must be separately represented, and whether a deadline should be set for the defendants to retain new counsel.
The court held that the order should simply require separate representation, as per the original ruling, and declined to impose a deadline for retaining new counsel.
The endorsement also clarifies that the mechanism for representation of the Estate of Landino Zuccarini remains to be determined at a future hearing.
Summary judgment granted terminating a commercial property agreement due to impossibility of condominium conversion, with damages awarded to plaintiffs for improvements.
The defendants moved for summary judgment to terminate a commercial property agreement due to the failure to obtain condominium conversion approval within two years, a condition precedent under the Planning Act.
The plaintiffs opposed, seeking specific performance or damages, arguing the property was unique and the defendants breached their good faith obligation to diligently pursue approval.
The court granted summary judgment, finding the condominium conversion commercially absurd and specific performance impossible without Planning Act compliance.
While denying specific performance, the court found the defendants breached their duty to notify the plaintiffs of the futility of the plan and awarded the plaintiffs $285,000 in damages for their investment and relocation costs, offset by accumulated rent held in court.
