2 total
Ex parte investigative receivership orders set aside for unjustifiably overreaching to protect non-party investors.
The applicant obtained a default judgment for fraud against the respondents regarding a tax loss allocation scheme.
He subsequently obtained an ex parte order under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act appointing a receiver over the respondents' assets.
Through further ex parte applications, the receivership was expanded into a broad investigative receivership freezing the assets of 43 additional non-party individuals and entities to protect the interests of thousands of other investors.
The Court of Appeal set aside the orders, holding that while s. 101 permits investigative receiverships in appropriate circumstances, the orders here were unjustifiably overreaching and went beyond protecting the applicant's judgment recovery.
Revised condominium disclosure did not contain material changes justifying purchaser rescission.
A condominium developer sought declarations that purchasers of two commercial hotel condominium units were bound by their agreements of purchase and sale and that their notices of rescission were invalid.
The purchasers argued that a revised disclosure statement contained several undisclosed material changes, including cost allocation shifts, lack of PATH access, kitchen configuration changes, ownership changes in certain units, and a reduction in the building’s overall height.
Applying the objective test for material change under the Condominium Act, the court found that none of the alleged changes—individually or cumulatively—would have caused a reasonable purchaser to rescind the transaction.
The developer established that the changes did not materially affect the investment value or income potential of the units.
The court therefore held that the purchasers’ rescission notices were ineffective and that the agreements remained binding.
