S. Schwartz

The defendant brought a summary judgment motion to vacate or discharge the plaintiff's claim for lien, or alternatively to reduce the amount of security posted.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the contract price and the date the plaintiff last performed work on the project.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not permit a fair and just determination of these issues without a trial, as there were serious credibility issues and conflicting evidence.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application for a declaration that a charge registered on a property was void as a fraudulent conveyance.

At a case conference, the respondents argued the matter should proceed as a trial of an issue due to factual disputes and credibility issues.

The court directed that the matter proceed by way of application, noting that the presiding judge could still order a trial of an issue under Rule 38.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following the successful dismissal of a motion to approve a settlement agreement in CCAA proceedings, the successful lien claimants sought costs against the applicants, Tarion, and the applicants' shareholder.

The court declined to award costs against Tarion because the lien claimants failed to provide adequate prior notice of their intention to seek costs against it.

However, the court awarded costs against the applicants' estate, reasoning that the estate and its creditors benefited from the lien claimants' successful opposition, which preserved security funds.

Costs were fixed at $35,000 total on a partial indemnity basis, payable only to the extent the applicants actually receive the benefit of the security.

The applicants sought directions regarding the marketing and sale process for several commercial properties previously ordered to be sold following a family dispute.

Disagreements among the parties had stalled execution of the earlier order, including disputes over listing price, bidding procedures, participation of bidding owners, and selection of an environmental assessment firm.

The court approved a two‑stage bidding process, confirmed that bidding owners could not attend the opening of first‑stage bids, and approved the proposed environmental firm.

Finding that persistent family conflict had frustrated the earlier order and would likely continue to delay the sale, the court determined that an independent receiver should be appointed to supervise the marketing and sale of the properties with the assistance of a brokerage firm.

The parties were directed to return with proposals for the appointment of a receiver and the bidding process was ordered to be completed by a specified deadline.

Following earlier reasons ordering the court-supervised sale of several properties after a hybrid trial, the court addressed costs.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs against various respondents across two related applications.

The court found the applicants had substantially succeeded but determined that the record did not allow proper allocation of costs between the two proceedings.

Accordingly, the court referred the costs of both applications to an assessment officer under Rule 57.01(3.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with directions regarding which respondents could be liable and limiting recovery to litigation-related expenses.

A dispute arose from an agreement of purchase and sale requiring the defendant to reconvey a five‑acre parcel to the plaintiff following a severance under the Planning Act.

The defendant refused to sign severance documentation, asserting that its lease obligations with a third party required exclusive access and prevented consent to the severance.

The court held that the agreement’s entire agreement clause barred reliance on implied terms and that the defendant’s obligation to cooperate with the severance was clear and unconditional.

The proposed severance did not interfere with the approved development plan, and the defendant’s conflicting agreement with a third party did not excuse performance.

Because the plaintiff had effectively paid $200,000 for the reconveyed land and damages would be inadequate, the court granted specific performance compelling the defendant to execute documents and cooperate with the severance process.

The applicants sought the sale of three groups of commercial properties owned jointly by different branches of the Battista family.

The respondents opposed the open market sale, arguing for a 'Fundamental Understanding' that gave family members a right of first offer or refusal.

The court found no such understanding existed and that the relationship between the family members had irreparably broken down, causing a deadlock in the management of the properties.

The court ordered a court-supervised sale of all properties on the open market without any right of first refusal, allowing all parties to bid.

In an ongoing oppression application, the applicants moved under s. 249(4) of the OBCA for an order requiring the respondent corporation to pay their interim legal fees.

The respondent moved for documentary production.

The court dismissed the applicants' motion, finding they failed to provide sufficient independent evidence of their financial difficulty or the quantum of costs sought.

The court refused to hear the respondent's motion because he had failed to comply with a previous court order regarding the funding of independent counsel.

The court also ordered the parties to prepare a trial preparation plan.