Winston Fogarty

The applicant, a former officer of a municipally-owned utility corporation, sought indemnity and advancement of legal costs for his participation in a judicial inquiry investigating the sale of the utility's shares.

The respondent corporation denied the request, arguing the inquiry was not a proceeding that triggered the indemnity bylaw and that allegations of possible misconduct precluded advancement.

The court held that the inquiry was a proceeding under the bylaw and that section 136 of the Business Corporations Act provided discretionary authority to order advancement of costs.

The court ordered the respondent to advance the applicant's legal costs for the ongoing phase of the inquiry, subject to repayment if the applicant is ultimately found not to have acted honestly and in good faith.

The Proposed Intervenors brought a motion for leave to intervene in an application to set aside an arbitration award arising from the receivership of a Ponzi scheme.

The Proposed Intervenors argued they had an interest in the subject matter, would be adversely affected, and shared common questions of law or fact, as they faced similar claims in separate proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Proposed Intervenors had no direct interest in the subject matter, would not be adversely affected by the judgment, and would not make a useful contribution without causing injustice or delay to the immediate parties.

This is a scheduling endorsement in a complex bankruptcy and receivership proceeding.

The court established timetables on consent for upcoming motions to strike in related Small Claims Court matters, a motion to intervene by a law firm, and an application to appeal an arbitration award.

The court also directed the filing of arbitration transcripts and encouraged the parties to agree on terms for turning over certain rent-to-own properties.