There were six substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week. There were many criminal decisions released.

In Wall v. Shaw, the Court determined that there is no limitation period to objecting to accounts in an application to pass accounts in an estates matter. A notice of objection is not a “proceeding” within the meaning of the Limitations Act, 2002.

One of the most delicate balancing acts that the Courts are asked to perform in Canada is balancing all of the disparate and competing interests in an insolvency process. The Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to review one iteration of this balancing act in Reciprocal Opportunities Incorporated v.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Ledcor case (which held that “resultant damage” arising from faulty workmanship is not excluded by the faulty workmanship exclusion in a builders’ risk policy) was held not to allow for coverage for “resultant damage” arising from faulty workmanship under an all-risks property policy.

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

37997 St. James No.1 Inc. v. Ed Vanderwindt, Chief Building Official and City of Hamilton (Ont.)

Municipal law – Heritage properties – Demolition or removal of structure

In Esfahani v. Samimi, 2018 ONCA 516 the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that a plaintiff pursuing a fraudulent conveyance or preference must recognize that the legal landscapes changes with a bankruptcy and that the effects of a bankruptcy filing cannot be ignored.

Introduction

Before July 2016, in order to wind-up a strata corporation voluntarily through a liquidator in B.C., unanimous approval of the strata owners was generally required. The unanimity requirement made strata wind-ups a rare event, and consequently it was exceedingly difficult for owners to sell a strata complex in its entirety for redevelopment. In an influential 2015 report, the B.C. Law Institute (“BCLI”) identified some of the problems with the unanimity requirement:

When negotiating a commercial lease, it is in the landlord’s best interest to require that securities be provided by the prospective tenant in order to protect the landlord against the tenant’s failure to perform its obligations under the lease. A frequent cause of a tenant’s inability to perform its obligations is its insolvency or financial difficulties.

Lors de la négociation d’un bail commercial, le bailleur a tout intérêt à exiger des garanties de son futur locataire pour se protéger en cas d’inexécution des obligations de celui-ci. Une cause fréquente du manquement par le locataire à ses obligations est son insolvabilité ou des difficultés financières. Or, il est important pour tout bailleur de savoir que la faillite d’un locataire ou le dépôt par celui-ci d’un avis d’intention ou d’une proposition aux termes de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (« L.F.I.

When negotiating a commercial lease, the lessor has every interest in demanding guarantees from his future tenant to protect himself in case of non-fulfillment of his obligations. A common cause of the tenant's breach of his obligations is his insolvency or financial hardship. However, it is important for any lessor to know that a tenant's bankruptcy or filing of a notice of intention or a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (" LFI ") may have the effect of annihilating the protection offered by certain guarantees.

Good evening,

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

Topics this week included personal injury, family law, employment law, property law, mortgages, bankruptcy and insolvency and extensions of time to appeal.

Have a nice weekend.