Timothy Pinos

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations of fraudulent conveyances and unjust preferences concerning a condominium unit in Toronto.

The plaintiff sought to establish that certain instruments and an underlying alter ego trust created between May and August 2024 were fraudulent conveyances designed to defeat creditors.

The plaintiff was enforcing three Greek judgments totaling approximately 700,000 euros against the defendants.

The court applied the three-part test for certificates of pending litigation and found that the plaintiff established a high probability of success on the underlying action, sufficient evidence of badges of fraud to create a triable issue, and that the balance of convenience favoured issuance of the certificate.

The court granted leave to amend and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The appellants sought certification of a proposed class action on behalf of approximately 15,000 Canadian major junior hockey players from 1975 to the present, alleging systemic abuse including physical and sexual assaults, bullying, harassment, and hazing.

The class action named 78 defendants across four major junior hockey leagues and sought to hold the leagues and teams liable for systemic negligence in failing to adopt and enforce effective abuse-prevention policies.

The motion judge denied certification, finding the action unmanageable due to its unprecedented scope and complexity, and that no viable litigation plan had been presented.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: that they had disclosed a viable cause of action, that common issues existed, and that the class action was the preferable procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellants had viable claims and the motion judge applied an overly stringent test to the common issues requirement, the action was unmanageable and therefore not the preferable procedure.

The court emphasized that the proposed class action was far broader and more complex than previous systemic negligence class actions, involving 78 defendants across 13 jurisdictions, events spanning 50 years, and complex conflicts-of-law issues.

The appellants' attempt to fundamentally alter their case on appeal by dropping 74 defendants was rejected as impermissible.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement of two Ukrainian judgments against the respondent in Ontario.

The respondent opposed the application on three grounds: (1) the amendment seeking to enforce a 2022 BVI judgment recognizing the Ukrainian judgments was impermissible as a derivative judgment; (2) the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002; and (3) the Ukrainian judgments violated natural justice.

The court found the application was statute-barred, as the limitation period for enforcement commenced when the Ukrainian judgments became final in 2018, not when the 2022 BVI judgment was rendered.

The court also found that seeking enforcement of the 2022 BVI judgment constituted an impermissible derivative judgment.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant tenant appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay over $1.1 million in alleged profits earned from a commercial sublease to the respondent landlord.

The motion judge had interpreted the lease to preclude the tenant from deducting the rent it paid for unusable open-air space on the sublet floor, and found the claim was governed by the 6-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's interpretation ignored the factual matrix and resulted in a commercial absurdity.

The tenant was entitled to deduct the full rent paid for the floor, meaning it incurred a $2.6 million loss, not a profit.

The Court also held that the obligation to remit profit was not 'rent', and therefore the 2-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied.

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, LoyaltyOne, Co. and its Monitor sought a declaration that a Tax Matters Agreement (TMA) was not binding or was void as a transfer at undervalue (TUV), and sought to disclaim the TMA to secure a $96 million tax refund.

Bread Financial Holdings, Inc. (formerly ADS) cross-moved to set aside the disclaimer, asserting its entitlement to the refund under the TMA.

The court ruled that LoyaltyOne was bound by the TMA, the TMA was not void as a TUV, and the disclaimer was not approved.

The court found it premature to determine the specific nature of Bread's rights to the refund.

The appellants moved for a stay pending appeal of an order made under s. 7 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which directed the continuation of a proposed class action as individual actions following the refusal of certification.

The respondents argued the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to grant the stay, asserting the appeal properly lay to the Divisional Court.

The motion judge held that until a panel quashes the appeal, the court has jurisdiction under r. 63.02(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to grant a stay.

Given the respondents consented to a stay in principle, the court granted the stay of the s. 7 order but declined to stay the certification and dismissal orders.

This decision concerns Phase 4 of a motion to settle a Section 7 Order under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The original proposed class action, brought by former and current major junior hockey players alleging abuse, was not certified.

The Section 7 Plan aims to transition the proposed class action into up to 60 individual joinder actions.

The court approved Version 4 of the Draft Section 7 Plan, which outlines procedures for notice, opt-in, commencement of actions, case management, and discovery.

A key contentious issue resolved in this phase concerned the staying of third-party claims until the completion of the main actions.

This decision is Phase 3 of a motion to settle a Section 7 Order under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court is finalizing the Draft Section 7 Plan, which facilitates the transition of a proposed class action, previously denied certification, into up to 60 individual joinder actions against various hockey leagues and teams.

The plan addresses notice dissemination, the approval of contingency fee agreements, the management of third-party claims by staying them under Rule 29.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the potential for severance of actions.

The court also proposes a consensual settlement track for modest claims as an alternative to litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to settle a Rule 7 Order pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, following the dismissal of their certification motion for a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in amateur hockey.

The court reviewed and settled the revised Draft Section 7 Plan, which transitions the proposed class action into up to 60 joinder actions against the defendant hockey teams and leagues.

The court approved the notice plan, opt-in procedures, and case management provisions, with minor revisions to protect player privacy and ensure efficient administration.

The appellant obtained a judgment for unpaid commissions against Stonebrook Properties Inc. and registered a writ of seizure and sale against a condominium development property registered in Stonebrook's name.

The respondents, who were the beneficial owners of the property, successfully applied to have the writ lifted on the basis that Stonebrook held the property as a bare trustee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that Stonebrook was a bare trustee with no independent discretion, meaning the property was not available to satisfy a judgment against it.

The plaintiff landlord and defendant tenant both brought motions for summary judgment regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease.

The landlord claimed the tenant owed over $2 million in profits from three subleases, while the tenant argued it incurred losses after deducting reasonable costs.

The court held that the tenant could not deduct rent paid for retained Atrium space as a reasonable cost of the subleases.

However, the court found that rent lost during rent-free fixturing periods, as well as legal fees and real estate commissions, were reasonable costs that could be deducted from the sublease profits.

The applicants sought the release of funds held in trust, arguing that a writ of execution obtained by the respondent against a bare trustee did not attach to the property.

The respondent argued that the bare trustee was also acting as an agent for the applicants, making them liable as principals for her unpaid commissions.

The court found that while an agency relationship did exist, the respondent was precluded from recovering against the principals because she had already obtained judgment against the agent, and the limitation period to sue the principals had expired.

The funds were ordered released to the applicants.

The applicants sought an order declaring that a writ of execution obtained by the respondent against Stonebrook Inc. did not attach to real property registered in Stonebrook Inc.'s name.

The respondent had obtained the writ to enforce a judgment for unpaid commissions.

The court found that Stonebrook Inc. held the property merely as a bare trustee for the applicants (the beneficial owners) and had no independent discretion or beneficial interest in the property.

Consequently, under section 9(1) of the Execution Act, the writ could not attach to the property.

However, the court deferred releasing funds held in trust to allow the respondent an opportunity to argue that the bare trustee acted as an agent for the beneficial owners.

Following a successful application regarding a restructuring support agreement, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of approximately $1.18 million based on a contractual covenant.

The respondents argued for partial indemnity costs.

The court held that while the contractual provision for full indemnity was an important factor, it did not override the court's discretion to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable.

Finding the hours docketed by the applicants' counsel excessive for a one-issue case, the court awarded a global all-inclusive costs amount of $800,000.

The applicants sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of the 'Outside Date' in a restructuring support agreement.

The respondent, a cannabis company, argued that any extension of the Outside Date required its initiation or consent.

The court found that the plain and ordinary meaning of the agreement allowed the lenders to automatically extend the Outside Date upon their written consent, acting reasonably, without the need for the respondent's consent.

The court granted the declaration sought by the applicants.

The proposed intervener, a shareholder of the respondent corporation and leader of an investor group, brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in an application concerning the extension of an outside date for a recapitalization transaction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener's financial interest in the outcome did not constitute a direct interest in the subject matter of the private commercial dispute.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed intervener's intended evidence regarding foreign regulatory law would not make a useful contribution to the resolution of the proceeding.

Crystallex International Corporation and Tenor Special Situation I, LP sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order that partially dismissed Crystallex's request to seal certain financial information in the Monitor's Thirty-Third Report.

The motion judge had applied the Sierra Club test and found the evidence for sealing speculative.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious and the case was not of significance to the practice, upholding the motion judge's discretionary order.

The appellants, a group of telecommunications carriers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that increased the province-wide default price for attaching cables to electricity poles.

The appellants argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by conducting a policy review rather than holding a full hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was not statutorily required to hold a hearing under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, and that the policy review process adopted by the Board was procedurally fair and entitled to deference.

Crystallex International Corporation brought a motion for a sealing order to keep confidential certain financial information and strategic details contained in the Monitor's 33rd Report, including cash balance, litigation expenses, sanctions impact, and confidential mediation disputes.

The Ad Hoc Committee of senior noteholders and the Trustee opposed the sealing of financial information, arguing for the importance of disclosure in CCAA proceedings.

The court applied the Sierra Club test, which requires demonstrating a real and substantial risk to an important commercial interest, no reasonable alternative to sealing, and the salutary effects outweighing the deleterious effects on the open-court principle.

The court found Crystallex's evidence, consisting of bald and speculative statements, insufficient to meet this high evidentiary burden, and therefore dismissed the motion for a sealing order.

Goldcorp applied under section 175(1) of the Mining Act for a grant of surface rights over lands required to redevelop the Dome Underground and Open Pit mines.

Goldcorp owned the underlying mining rights but not the surface rights, which were held by various co-owners, many of whom were deceased or unlocatable.

After providing notice as ordered by the Tribunal, Goldcorp acquired the interests of the known and locatable heirs.

The Tribunal found that the surface rights were essential for the proper working of the mine and granted an order vesting the requested surface rights in Goldcorp.