Bankruptcy & Receivership: Milestone Payments; Stays
Bank of Montreal, as administrative agent v. Unity Health Toronto, 2026 ONCA 82 (42288)
Unity Health Toronto awarded a contract for a redevelopment project to a company referred to as ProjectCo. ProjectCo obtained financing from lenders who appointed Bank of Montreal as their administrative agent. ProjectCo went into receivership and defaulted. A receivership order stayed proceedings against ProjectCo. Despite the receivership, Unity Health Toronto was allowed to continue the project. In 2020, Bank of Montreal applied for a declaration a milestone payment was due to the lenders under the agreements involving ProjectCo and for an order assigning ProjectCo’s rights to recover the milestone payment to it. Unity Health Toronto brought a motion seeking orders dismissing Bank of Montreal’s motions and lifting the stay of proceedings under the receivership order so it could terminate its project agreement with ProjectCo. The motions judge dismissed Bank of Montreal’s motions and granted Unity Health Toronto’s motion for an order lifting the stay of proceedings so it could terminate its project agreement. Bank of Montreal brought a motion to the Ont. C.A. to determine which subsection of s. 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act gives it a right to appeal the decision lifting the stay of proceedings. A judge of the Ont. C.A. held Bank of Montreal could only seek leave to appeal pursuant to s. 193(e) and denied leave to appeal. A panel of the Ont. C.A. dismissed a motion to review the chamber judge’s decision. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Bankruptcy & Receivership: Provable Claims
In the Matter of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended, et al. v. Athanasoulis 2025 ONCA 591 (42039)
YSL Residences Inc. and YG Limited Partnership owned property on which they intended to develop an 85-storey building. YSL and YG filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act before the project was built. The Applicant, KSV Restructuring Inc., was appointed as proposal trustee. The Respondent, Ms. Athanasoulis, was a former employee of YSL who claimed $1M in damages for wrongful dismissal and $18M in damages for breach of a profit-sharing agreement. She filed a proof of claim against YSL for the two unsecured claims. The trustee accepted the wrongful dismissal claim but disallowed the profit-sharing claim on the basis it was an equity claim, and was too contingent and remote. Ms. Athanasoulis appealed the disallowance to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The first appeal judge allowed Ms. Athanasoulis’ appeal, finding the profit-sharing claim was not a claim in equity, but a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract arising from her wrongful dismissal. The claim was not a contingent claim nor was it too remote. The next step in the proceeding was to hold a hearing for the purpose of quantifying Ms. Athanasoulis’ profit-sharing claim. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the trustee’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Delay; Status Reviews
Izz v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA (42122)
The Applicant, Bahaa Izz, filed a J.R. in the Fed. Court in July 2024. The required steps to advance the application were not completed within 180 days, as required by the Federal Courts Rules. In April 2025, the Fed. Court issued a notice of status review. After reviewing the parties’ submissions concerning the delay, the Fed. Court dismissed the J.R; the appeal was dismissed by the Fed. C.A. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Dismissal; Abuse of Process
Pine Glen Thorold Inc. v. Rolling Meadows Land Development Corporation, et al., 2025 ONCA 604 (42057)
The Applicant, Pine Glen Thorold Inc. (“Pine Glen”), a homebuilding company, entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with the Respondent, Rolling Meadows Land Development Corporation (“Rolling Meadows”), for the purchase of development lands. The agreement was subsequently amended. After a dispute arose regarding the amended agreement, litigation ensued and it was ultimately found to be binding and enforceable, a decision upheld on appeal. Following closing of the transaction, Pine Glen commenced a subsequent action against Rolling Meadows and its principal, Glen Gordon, also a Respondent, asserting numerous causes of action in contract, tort and breach of duty. The motion judge struck the claim in its entirety for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and denied leave to amend the claim. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal on the basis the action constituted an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate issues that were, or could have been, raised in the previous proceedings and raised issues arising from the conduct of that litigation. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Creditor Debtor: Recognition of Foreign Judgments
TCA Global Credit Master Fund, LP v. Apelian, 2025 QCCA 1083 (42078)
TCA Global applied for homologation, in Québec, of a foreign judgment rendered by a Florida court in order to obtain the repayment of a loan. Mr. Apelian challenged that application on the ground the clauses of the contract, on which the Florida court had relied, were contrary to Québec public order and could not be set up against him. The trial judge dismissed the application for homologation and ordered Mr. Apelian to repay the loan. Relying on art. 3155(5) of the Civil Code of Québec, she found the judgment could not be recognized under Québec law, because it was manifestly inconsistent with public order. TCA Global challenged that decision on appeal and argued the trial judge should have limited herself to analyzing the decision and not sought to retry the case. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the appeal and noted the contractual clauses of the contract contravened the basic principles of the Québec legal system. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Condos/Real Property: Injunctions; Stays
Mughal v. Mandarino, et al., 2025 QCCA 1056 (42051)
Mario Mandarino, Susan Henderson and Tara Mandarino filed an originating application against Mubeenah Mughal in which they asserted she was illegally, and without their consent, occupying a condominium unit owned by them. A default judgment was rendered and the court issued a permanent injunction requiring Ms. Mughal to vacate the unit. More than a month later, the court granted Ms. Mughal’s application for revocation of judgment on an ex parte basis and issued a safeguard order staying the execution of the judgment. Ms. Mandarino, Ms. Henderson and Ms. Mandarino filed an application with the court for the revocation of this latter judgment. The application for revocation of judgment was granted by the Québec Superior Court. They had shown they were prevented from defending against Ms. Mughal’s application owing to fraud, surprise or any other cause considered sufficient. The Qué. C.A. dismissed Ms. Mughal’s application for leave to appeal. It found the grounds of appeal raised were not serious, had no reasonable chance of success and did not merit the court’s attention. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Employment Law: Insurance Benefits
Mayhead v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 157 (42115)
The Applicant Kerry Mayhead applied for Employment Insurance Benefits. The Employment Insurance Commission rejected Ms. Mayhead’s claim, on the basis she did not have enough hours of insurable employment during the qualifying period preceding her claim, in order to qualify for benefits. The Commission rejected Ms. Mayhead’s request for reconsideration of the decision. The General Division of the Social Securities Tribunal (“SST”) dismissed Ms. Mayhead’s appeal of the reconsideration decision, and the Appeal Division of the SST refused Ms. Mayhead leave to appeal the General Division decision. The Fed. Court dismissed Ms. Mayhead’s J.R. of the Appeal Division decision, and the Fed. C.A. unanimously dismissed her appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Family Law: Vexatious Litigation
Ubah v. Ubah, 2026 ABCA 100, (42330)
The parties were the parents of two children. The father sought to appeal an interim parenting order imposed by a case management judge. The father had been involved in litigation across a variety of subjects and declared a vexatious litigant by way of an order of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. Permission to appeal to the Alta. C.A. was not granted. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the response is granted. The motion for a stay is dismissed. The motions to dispense from filing the printed versions of the application for leave to appeal and the response are granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Human Rights: Alleged Discrimination
Noble v. Genuine Canadian Corp. o/a Carter’s Oshkosh, et al., 2025 ONCA (42097)
Mr. Noble filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario following an altercation with an employee at a Carter’s Oshkosh store in Toronto (owned and operated by The Genuine Canadian Corp.). Mr. Noble claimed he was discriminated on the basis of his race and colour. The Tribunal dismissed Mr. Noble’s application (“the merits decision”). The Tribunal concluded Mr. Noble had not established on the balance of probabilities, his race and colour were factors in the Respondent’s conduct towards him. The reconsideration decision was also dismissed. The J.R. of the merits and reconsideration decisions were dismissed. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the motion for leave to appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent Genuine Canadian Corp. o/a Carter’s Oshkosh.”
Human Rights: Alleged Discrimination
Laho v. Metro Ontario Inc., et al., 2025 ONCA (42111)
Certain information is not available to the public in this human rights complaint re alleged discrimination. “The motion for leave to file a lengthy application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion to seal the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed, with costs to the respondent Metro Ontario Inc.”
Real Property/Contracts: Presale Contracts; Anticipatory Repudiation
Zhang, et al. v. Anderson Square Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCCA 288 (42054)
The Respondent developer, Anderson Square Holdings Ltd., and Applicant purchasers entered into presale contracts for a strata development in Richmond, B.C. The Respondent developer purported to terminate the contracts, relying on two clauses in the contracts. The presale contracts contained an outside completion date. Failure to be able to meet the outside completion date triggered the termination clauses in the contracts. It was common ground the development could not complete by the outside completion date. The Applicants did not agree the Respondent could terminate the contracts and filed a claim for damages. A key issue at trial was whether the presale contracts terminated automatically, on notice being given, if the outside completion date could not be met (unless that date was extended by agreement), or whether the outside completion date was automatically extended for a time and the contract remained in effect. The B.C.S.C. concluded the contract did not automatically terminate on notice. It remained in force and the Respondent was in breach of contract (by anticipatorily repudiating the contract) when it purported to give notice of termination. The judge assessed damages of approximately $13M. The B.C.C.A. unanimously allowed the Respondent’s appeal and dismissed the underlying action. It held the trial judge erred in his interpretation of the termination clause, and the Respondent was entitled to terminate the contract. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Wills & Estates: Annulment of Gift; Disclosure
Pilon (succession of Réjeanne Latendresse) v. Pilon (succession of Réjeanne Latendresse), et al., 2025 QCCA 1087 (42080)
The Applicant Sylvain Pilon was co-heir of the estate of his mother, Réjeanne Latendresse, who died in 2021, as well as co-liquidator with his brother. In 2024, the Applicant commenced an originating application against his mother’s estate, as well as against his brother in his capacity as co-liquidator; against the liquidator of the estate of their deceased sister; against certain notaries; and against the professional liability insurance fund of Chambre des notaires du Québec. The proceeding sought, among other things, the annulment (through an application in improbation) of an act of gift from 2002 by which the Applicant’s mother apparently gifted the family property to the Applicant’s sister, as well as the disclosure of certain documents in the possession of third parties. The Respondent Chambre des notaires du Québec, through its insurance fund, filed an application to declare the proceeding inconsistent with the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure and to order the application in improbation of the act of gift be dismissed. The trial judge ordered the filing of a new originating application consistent with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, the dismissal of the application in improbation with respect to the act of gift of the property, and the disclosure of certain documents in the possession of third parties. A Qué. C.A. judge sitting alone refused to grant the Applicant leave to appeal the trial judgment. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”