Call us: (905) 366 9700
Legal Blog:
Jan
10
2017
Fraudulent Conveyance/Oppression
2081451 Ontario Ltd. v. 2221306 Ontario Inc. 2016 Ont SCJ
Corporate vendor sold convenience store to corporate purchaser, owned by husband. Money was due on the purchase and the purchaser ultimately defaulted. Wife incorporated another corporation (Newco) and took over the convenience store for no consideration; wife did not work in the convenience store, only husband for a mere $1,700 per month. Husband went bankrupt and vendor obtained a judgment against the purchaser for $320,000. Vendor commenced an application against Newco claiming a fraudulent conveyance and against wife under the oppression remedies of the Business Corporations Act. Vendor was successful against both. Wife was liable because, as a director and officer of Newco, she acted in a manner that was oppressive and unfairly prejudiced or disregarded the interests of the purchaser as a creditor.
Continue Reading >Jan
10
2017
Full Indemnity Costs
Tingas-Demetriou v. Dublin 2016 Ont SCJ
The plaintiff made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and improper conduct against the defendants. The plaintiff agreed to have the action dismissed just before the return of a motion for summary judgment. The judge awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, stating that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that it was putting the professional reputations of the defendants into question with allegations that were seriously prejudicial to the character and reputation of the defendants.
Continue Reading >Jan
10
2017
Security for Costs – Construction
Proxema Ltd. v. Birock Investments Inc. 2016 Ont SCJ
The corporate general had little to gain from the action and was prosecuting it mostly for the benefit of unpaid subcontractors; indeed, it seemed that the subcontractors were funding the litigation. The owner determined at discoveries that the general was not continuing to carry on business and brought the motion based on that information. Further information was forthcoming when the general’s representative was cross-examined on his affidavit in response to the motion. The judge noted that the owner did not need initially to prove that the general had insufficient assets; it only needed to prove that there was good reason to believe that it had insufficient assets. Once that was done, the onus switched to the general. The judge agreed that leave to bring the motion should be given because it was necessary to level the playing field. However, the judge limited the amount of the security to the $50,000 maximum used in payment of security to vacate a lien.
Continue Reading >Jan
10
2017
Affidavits General
Allianz Global Risks v. AG Canada 2016 Ont SCJ (Master)
A party may move to strike an affidavit under Rule 25.11 in advance of a motion or application or wait until the hearing of the motion or application. In general, on an interlocutory motion, the evidence should not be struck in advance unless there is some special reason to do so. This general rule does not apply regarding applications because evidence is more circumscribed in applications than motions and it may be more efficient to deal with the record in advance of the application than leave the parties uncertain as to whether they must respond to improper material.
Continue Reading >