Tim Duncan

Canopy Growth Corporation brought an unopposed motion under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the stay of proceedings against 3 Sixty Secure Corp. and 3 Sixty Risk Solutions Ltd. The purpose was to pursue a claim related to a fire at Canopy's property, seeking recovery on a potential insurance contract.

The court granted the order, finding no prejudice to the company or other creditors, as any insurance proceeds would only be available to third parties like Canopy, not general creditors.

The applicants sought declaratory orders after the conservation authority cancelled a permit for their home renovation project.

The respondent brought a motion arguing the application was premature or should be transferred to the Divisional Court as a judicial review.

The Superior Court found that the application fundamentally challenged the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Conservation Authorities Act.

Concluding that the matter was properly a judicial review and not satisfying the urgency requirement for Superior Court jurisdiction, the court ordered the application transferred to the Divisional Court.

The Receiver, supported by the Applicant (senior secured lender and stalking horse bidder), sought court approval for a Sale Procedure featuring a stalking horse agreement for the North Barrie Crossing Shopping Centre.

The Respondents opposed, raising concerns about the credit bid valuation, expense reimbursement, deposit requirements, minimum overbid, and the timing of the sale during the COVID-19 crisis.

The court applied the Soundair and CCM Master principles, largely approving the Receiver's plan with minor amendments, including requiring environmental and building condition reports and tenant estoppel certificates, and extending the sale timeline by two weeks to enhance the bidding process.

The defendant, Integral Development LLC, moved to set aside a default judgment of $8.05 million arising from a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The defendant argued it had a plausible excuse for failing to defend the action and an arguable defence on the merits, specifically that a condition in the agreement of purchase and sale was never met.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendant's excuse was plausible and its defence had an air of reality.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the default judgment, allowing the defendant to defend the claim on its merits.

In this case management endorsement, the court addressed several procedural issues between the parties.

The court set a schedule for written submissions to settle the terms of a previous order, established a contingent timetable for pleadings pending an appeal, ordered the return of the plaintiff's devices, and directed further submissions on a document protocol and costs.

The court issued a costs endorsement following an interlocutory decision where the defendants sought to interpret a previous order, imposing additional and retroactive obligations on the plaintiff and its expert.

The plaintiff successfully resisted the defendants' arguments on most issues.

The court found the defendants' positions unreasonable and unfair, particularly their allegations of misconduct against the plaintiff's counsel and expert, which unnecessarily consumed court and plaintiff's time.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, reducing the claimed amount due to excessive research time and high expert invoice.

This is a costs endorsement following a pleadings motion where the Plaintiff largely succeeded in striking portions of the Defendants' pleadings.

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $122,000.00.

The Defendants argued for each side to bear its own costs or for costs limited to $5,000.00, citing mixed success, leave to amend, and the Plaintiff's procedural disorganization.

The court found the Plaintiff to be the successful party but reduced the costs significantly, noting that both parties contributed to lengthening the proceeding and that the Plaintiff's initial cost claim was unreasonable.

The court ordered the Defendants to pay $30,000.00 in costs to the Plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion seeking directions on the interpretation of a previous order for the seizure and imaging of electronic devices, arguing it should implicitly incorporate standard Anton Piller Order protections and that Deloitte Inc. should be deemed an independent supervising solicitor.

The plaintiff resisted, asserting the original order was clear and granted on notice, not ex-parte.

The court dismissed the defendants' primary requests, holding that the order, having been granted after a full hearing with both parties present, did not automatically include ex-parte Anton Piller terms or appoint Deloitte as an independent supervising solicitor.

The court provided further directions for managing the collected electronic documents, including a timeline for the defendants to review MD5hash documents and the option for them to appoint their own expert to assist with keyword searches.

The plaintiff, TSI International Inc., brought a motion to strike significant portions of the defendants' Statement of Defence under Rules 25.11 and 21.

The defendants' pleadings included defences of abuse of process and the "clean hands" doctrine, as well as counterclaims for wrongful and constructive dismissal.

The court dismissed the defendants' abuse of process and clean hands defences under Rule 21, finding them to have no reasonable chance of success.

Consequently, numerous paragraphs of the Statement of Defence related to these dismissed defences were struck without leave to amend, except where relevant to the defendants' wrongful and constructive dismissal claims.

The court also clarified that prior judicial findings from an injunction motion do not constitute final factual determinations for the purpose of striking pleadings.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to consolidate two actions relating to fuel oil contamination or alternatively to obtain leave to issue a third party claim against additional defendants.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ claim for damages arising from fuel oil migrating from the defendant’s property did not share common issues of fact or law with the defendant’s separate action against service providers relating to his home heating system.

The proposed third party claim would duplicate claims already pursued in the separate action and would significantly delay and complicate the plaintiffs’ straightforward damages claim.

The court held that the prejudice to the plaintiffs from delay and increased complexity outweighed any benefit.

The motion was dismissed and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.