Decisions

Keep up to date on the latest Commercial List decisions.

• Seferovic v. 285 Spadina SPV Inc.

  keywords: Procedure — Costs — Abandonment and dismissal — Entitlement to costs on dismissal after abandonment — Application of Rules of Civil Procedure r. 38.08(3) and r. 57.01 — Whether respondents were successful parties in the Oppression Application — Applicants’ decision to end proceeding justified — Respondents not considered successful — Costs against Applicants refused — Claim for costs denied | Procedure — Costs — Prior agreement — Whether a prior costs agreement fixed at $45,000 governs after ultimate dismissal — Agreement applied to hearing before Kimmel J. only — Earlier order already fixed and awarded against different parties — No basis to award respondents further costs under agreement — Claim under agreement rejected | Procedure — Costs — Ancillary relief — Can additional relief be granted through costs submissions after dismissal? — Scope limited to costs once applications dismissed — Requests under Human Rights Code, s. 46.1(1), restitution and compensation declined — No further hearing directed — Additional orders sought outside costs jurisdiction refused | Procedure — Costs — Litigation conduct — Effect of vexatious or abusive steps on entitlement to costs — Findings that conduct was frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process — Consideration of r. 57.01 factors in light of prior findings — Steps improper, unnecessary — Respondents not entitled to costs — Costs denied

  CanLII | Apr 21, 2026
• 2356802 Ontario Corp. v. 285 Spadina SPV Inc.

  keywords: Procedure — Costs — Abandonment and respondent’s conduct — Rule 38.08(3) and rule 57.01, s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act — Is a respondent entitled to costs when the application was dismissed as effectively abandoned? — Findings of improper, vexatious and unnecessary steps by the respondent — Abuse of the process disentitling costs — Costs denied | Procedure — Costs — Assignment and standing — Respondent claiming Tenant’s costs as assignee and trustee — Can an assignee recover costs where the Tenant was not the successful party and no leave was granted? — Prior costs determination by the court not dependent on ultimate disposition — No order to continue obtained — Claim for costs denied | Procedure — Costs — Against corporate Tenant — Landlord seeking costs for unnecessary steps — Is the Landlord entitled to costs against the Tenant for proceedings largely initiated by the respondent after change of control? — Tenant represented by counsel then unrepresented without leave under rule 15.01(2) — Rule 57.01 factors weigh against award — Claim for costs denied | Procedure — Costs — Against individual respondent — Limited success — Is the Landlord entitled to costs against the respondent where little substantive relief was obtained against him personally? — Reference resulted in only a small reimbursement order against the respondent — Landlord not substantially successful against him — Respondent’s conduct considered but no shift — Claim for costs denied

  CanLII | Apr 21, 2026
• Seferovic v. 285 Spadina SPV Inc.

  keywords: Procedure — Court records and endorsements — Publication on CanLII — Do errors in a CanLII-published endorsement warrant correction or affect substance — Misidentification of hearing date and counsel assessed — Motion identified as brought by applicants in oppression application — Errors characterised as inconsequential and not affecting substance — No correction required | Public administration — Court administration — Internal processes — Will the court answer questions about internal court processes for preparing endorsements and issuing orders — Inquiries about preparation and transmission to CanLII — Questions to Commercial List Office addressed — Requests held not proper — Questions declined | Public administration — Court administration — Publication decisions — Who decides whether endorsements receive citation numbers and are sent to CanLII for publication — Decision left to the judge making the endorsement — Unpublished endorsements available for proper use — No reason shown to publish long after release — Judge’s discretion confirmed

  CanLII | Apr 16, 2026
• Surace v. Reis

  keywords: Business associations — Oppression remedy — Fiduciary duties of directors and officers — Whether conduct oppressing the Applicant and breaching fiduciary duties under the unanimous shareholders’ agreement — Diversion of employees and revenues to a competing company, commingling, failure to maintain books and remit trust funds — Conflict of interest contrary to OBCA, s. 134(3) — Oppression and breach of fiduciary duty found | Business associations — Remedies — Disgorgement — Appropriate oppression remedy for usurpation of corporate opportunities — Prophylactic disgorgement of profits gained by Dupont during conflicted period — Gains-based relief independent of precise loss, per Extreme Venture Partners Fund I LP v. Varma — Joint and several liability of fiduciary and beneficiary company — Disgorgement ordered | Contracts — Corporate succession arrangements — October 18, 2019 agreement — Whether respondent must indemnify for 50% of any shortfall and secure by mortgaging residence if needed — Terms triggered if receivership funds insufficient to retire CIBC facility — Certificate of pending litigation permitted — Indemnity and mortgage security required | Procedure — Affidavit evidence — Late filing — Whether two affidavits delivered after cross-examinations should be admitted — Breach of scheduling order and failure to seek leave under Rule 39.02(2) — No identified matter raised on cross-examination warranting response — Last-minute materials unfair — Affidavits struck

  CanLII | Apr 15, 2026
• Riocan Real Estate Investment Trust v. 2455034 Ontario Limited Partnership

  keywords: Bankruptcy and insolvency — Receivership — Costs — Entitlement to costs in a receivership — Are costs payable by the Receiver personally or from the debtor’s estate — Role of first secured creditor in funding and economic stake considered — Soundair principles distinguished from personal liability cases, Akagi and Haunert-Faga — Costs ordered payable forthwith from the debtor’s estate — Receiver not personally liable — Costs awarded | Procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — r. 49.10 — Does a non‑compliant offer trigger substantial indemnity costs — Offer required acceptance by multiple parties and terms beyond the motion’s scope — NorthStar Earth & Space applied — No bad faith warranting elevated scale — Partial indemnity is usual absent special circumstances — Substantial indemnity not warranted | Procedure — Costs — Fixing quantum — r. 57, Courts of Justice Act, s. 131 — Appropriate quantum assessed for high‑stakes motion — Proportionality and reasonable expectations considered — Docketed hours and disbursements scrutinised — Mid‑point between competing partial indemnity positions selected — Partial indemnity costs fixed at $400,000

  CanLII | Apr 14, 2026
• In Re Hudson's Bay Company

  keywords: Procedure — Court accommodations — Human Rights Code and AODA — Should all proceedings “involving” the self‑represented participant be conducted entirely in writing? — Balancing fairness to other stakeholders in “real time litigation” — Standard Accommodations provided, Zoom captions and transcripts available — Niang v. Lakeshore Gardens cited — Blanket written‑only process found not reasonable — Broader declaration refused | Evidence — Motions — Affidavit evidence — Sufficiency of medical documentation for accommodation — Rule 39, Rules of Civil Procedure, affidavit requirement emphasized — Unsworn letters and unidentified qualifications noted — Court prepared to accept statements at face value for this motion — Van Sluytman and Hylton principles on self‑represented litigants — Evidentiary deficiencies identified | Bankruptcy and insolvency — CCAA — Case management — Appropriate directions in complex restructuring — Whether Proprietary Claims Motion should proceed entirely in writing — “Real time litigation” and competing stakeholder interests considered — Monitor and Applicants’ proposal adopted — Timetabled exchange of sworn evidence and factums ordered — Monitor report contemplated — Proprietary Claims Motion to be heard in writing, other hearings oral with accommodations ordered

  CanLII | Apr 13, 2026
• Grant Thornton Ltd. v. Stavropoulos

  keywords: Bankruptcy and insolvency — Receivers — Appointment — Courts of Justice Act, s. 101, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, s. 243(1) — Whether it is just or convenient to appoint a receiver over InfoStream — Contractual right considered among all of the circumstances — Nature of property and balance of convenience assessed — No business to stabilise and collateral not at risk — Motion dismissed | Security interests — General security agreement — Debt versus equity — Are the advances debt secured by a valid GSA or equity? — Documentation backdated and below market terms — Validity and priority contested and credibility issues on the paper record — Determination unnecessary on this motion — Motion dismissed | Procedure — Injunctions — Mareva injunction — Should the Mareva be varied to permit enforcement of security and a receivership? — Limited injunctive relief restraining enforcement maintained — Lifting Mareva would negate the Trustee’s existing litigation — Variation not just or convenient — Motion dismissed

  CanLII | Apr 10, 2026
• Re LJM Developments (Hamilton) Inc.

  keywords: Procedure — Sealing order — Court records — Whether the Target Price List should be sealed and withheld from lien claimants — Sherman Estate v. Donovan test applied — Highly sensitive commercial pricing information — No reasonable alternative measures — Time limited sealing tied to sale of Unsold Units — Non-disclosure agreements contemplated by Monitor — Sealing order granted | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Regulatory stay — Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act — Whether to stay the HCRA Notice of Proposal and LAT Appeal under s. 11.1(3) — Viable compromise at risk without licensing certainty — Not contrary to the public interest — Distinction between Applicant and related entities maintained — BZAM Ltd. Plan of Arrangement considered — Regulatory stay ordered | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Sale process — Claims process — Whether to approve the Unit Sale Process and Lien Claims Process under ss. 36(3), 11 and 12 of the CCAA — Nortel Networks factors satisfied — Monitor support and oversight — Efficient, cost‑effective disposition of Unsold Units at or above Target Prices — Streamlined lien claims determination and deadlines — Orders granted | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Stay extension — Interim financing — Whether to extend the stay under s. 11.02 and authorise draws up to $2.5 million under s. 11.2(4) — Good faith and due diligence established — Cash flow needs and going‑concern efforts — Monitor support and no material prejudice — Stay extended and interim financing authorised

  CanLII | Apr 9, 2026
• Jackson v. OpenAI, Inc.

  keywords: Procedure — Sealing orders — Scope — Whether the Sealing Order and Amended Sealing Order apply to the Candore Affidavit — Paragraph 2 covers “any reference to the redacted information therein in subsequently filed Court documents” — Aizic v. Natcan Trust Company applied to purposive interpretation — Candore Affidavit references paragraph 19 of the Jain Affidavit — Application dismissed | Procedure — Sealing orders — Temporal effect — Do the orders operate prospectively only where materials were obtained before issuance? — CITY TV distinguished, confidentiality can be restored — Amendments effective on signing date, public record replaced — “Genie can be put back in the bottle” where use was contained — Application dismissed | Procedure — Sealing orders — Third parties — To what extent do the orders bind non-parties with good faith access before issuance? — Ivandaeva Total Image Salon Inc. v. Hlembizky confirms orders bind persons with notice — Chellappa v. Kumar distinguished, no reliance taken — Applicant now with notice cannot use Confidential Information — Application dismissed

  CanLII | Apr 8, 2026
• The Cannabist Company Holdings Inc. et al

  keywords: Bankruptcy and insolvency — KERP approvals — Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act — Whether the KERP and the KERP Charge should be approved — Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Re) and Just Energy factors applied — Monitor support and Supporting Noteholders’ consent — Necessity and design tied to restructuring objectives — Key Employees’ retention critical to Sale Transactions — Approval of KERP and KERP Charge granted | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Professional engagements and charges — CCAA s. 11 — Should the CRO and financial advisors be approved with charges? — Appointment of CRO appropriate and necessary — Moelis and Ducera engagements approved to advance Sale Transactions — Transaction Fee Charges granted, ranking behind other Charges — Monitor support and market parameters reviewed — Appointments and charges approved | Securities — Reporting issuer obligations — Relief from Securities Filings — Should the Applicants incur no further expenses for Securities Filings? — Reference to BZAM Ltd. Plan of Arrangement — Securities Act (Ontario) — Public disclosure maintained through CCAA materials — CBOE de‑listing review noted — No prejudice to stakeholders identified — Authorisation to cease incurring Securities Filings expenses approved | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Stays of proceedings — CCAA s. 11.02(2) — Whether extension of the Stay Period is appropriate — Good faith and due diligence found — Liquidity sufficient per cash flow forecast in First Report — Breathing space to pursue Sale Transactions — Monitor supports extension — Stay Period extended to the requested date

  CanLII | Apr 2, 2026