S. Rosen

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction against former employees and their new competing business, alleging breach of a confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement.

The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of breach, but dismissed the motion because the plaintiff failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages.

Defendants moved for a declaration that service ex juris of a statement of claim in Barbados was invalid.

The plaintiffs had personally travelled from Ontario to Barbados and hand-delivered the claim to the foreign defendants.

The court held that Rule 17.05(3)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires service in a contracting state to comply with the Hague Service Convention.

Article 10(c) of the Convention requires a document to be transmitted through judicial officers, officials, or other competent persons of the destination state and does not permit a litigant to personally travel abroad and effect service.

The purported service was therefore invalid, the noting in default was set aside, and the plaintiffs’ cross‑motion validating service was dismissed.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of an interim settlement with the judgment debtor and related parties concerning disputed ownership and realization of a cottage property during receivership proceedings.

The moving party, a judgment creditor, opposed the settlement, arguing that stronger litigation prospects justified pursuing a declaration that the debtor solely owned the property.

The court applied the principle that courts generally defer to a receiver’s commercially reasonable business judgment where the receiver has fully analyzed the circumstances and considered stakeholder interests.

Considering litigation risk, potential appeals, mounting receivership costs, lack of estate funding, and the need for timely recovery for creditors, the court found the settlement commercially reasonable.

The settlement was therefore approved.

In receivership proceedings brought in aid of execution against a judgment debtor, the court considered a motion by the court-appointed receiver for directions regarding enforcement steps and the disposition of certain assets.

The receiver sought approval to sell the debtor’s interest in a jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act, clarification regarding ownership of a cottage property, compliance with outstanding information requests, and approval of the receiver’s reports.

The court held that the spouse opposing sale failed to demonstrate circumstances of oppression, malice, or vexatious intent that would justify refusing the statutory right to partition or sale.

The court ordered the sale of the debtor’s interest in the matrimonial home, directed the parties to provide requested information to the receiver, scheduled a hearing regarding ownership of the cottage and related indebtedness issues, and approved the receiver’s reports.

Following reasons granting the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution over a judgment debtor’s assets, the court determined costs of the motion.

The moving party sought full indemnity costs against the debtor and another respondent.

The court held that elevated costs were justified against the debtor because his conduct—including obstructing enforcement of the judgment, withholding financial information, colluding with others, and using corporate structures to avoid payment—constituted reprehensible behaviour aimed at frustrating enforcement.

However, no costs were ordered against another respondent who had not opposed the receivership application and whose asserted security interest remained to be determined.

Substantial indemnity costs of $53,126.62 were awarded against the judgment debtor.

The judgment creditor sought the appointment of a receiver in aid of execution over the debtor’s assets after the debtor failed to pay a substantial judgment arising from a settlement agreement.

The court found extensive evidence that the debtor had structured his financial affairs through closely‑held corporations and family arrangements to obstruct enforcement, including placing mortgages on assets, refusing to produce financial records, and channeling benefits through corporations while claiming little personal income.

The court also found troubling evidence suggesting that the debtor’s spouse participated in attempts to create secured claims and judgments designed to defeat other creditors.

Given the debtor’s obstruction of examinations, failure to comply with garnishment obligations, and complex corporate arrangements shielding assets, the court held that ordinary enforcement mechanisms would be ineffective.

A receiver in aid of execution was therefore appointed with investigative powers to examine the debtor’s interests and financial dealings.