Good evening.

Below are the summaries of this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Good evening.

Below are the summaries of this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Good evening.

Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In 2014, we reported on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Indcondo Building Corporation v. Sloan (“Indcondo“), which strengthened the position of plaintiffs seeking to set aside fraudulent conveyances in Ontario. In the Indcondo case, Mr.

​The Ontario Court of Appeal released its much anticipated decision on the appeals taken from the trial decision of Justice McEwen in Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP et al.

When a financing statement is registered to perfect a security interest in collateral, it is the responsibility of the secured party to monitor the registration to ensure that a new financing statement is filed if the goods move jurisdictions. A recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice1 emphasizes this point.

Facts

In what may prove either to be a landmark decision or a mere outliner confined to its unique facts, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the "Court of Appeal") in Romspen Investment Corporation v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited, et al.1 has overturned an earlier decision and lifted the stay of proceedings against a court-appointed receiver to allow a union to proceed with a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint against the receiver.

INTRODUCTION

Q: What is the difference between a general assignment of rents and leases and a specific assignment of rents and leases, and when should I include them in my term sheet for a commercial real estate financing of an Ontario property?

In Caetano v Quality Meat Packers, 2017 ONSC 1199, Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court recently had opportunity to consider whether two representative proceedings commenced on behalf of two separate groups of employees against an insolvent employer ought to be struck because, despite the actions having been commenced within the applicable two year limitation period, the plaintiffs in those two actions had failed to obtain the necessary representation orders within the two year period.