2607087 Ontario Limited v. 2654993 Ontario Ltd. et al.
2607087 Ontario Limited
2654993 Ontario Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Book Erskine LLP
Lawyer(s)

Sara Jane Erskine

2654982 Ontario Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Book Erskine LLP
Lawyer(s)

Sara Jane Erskine

2654983 Ontario Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Book Erskine LLP
Lawyer(s)

Sara Jane Erskine

2654992 Ontario Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Book Erskine LLP
Lawyer(s)

Sara Jane Erskine

Romspen Investment Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Blaney McMurtry LLP
Lawyer(s)

Eric Golden

Horseshoe Valley Developments (2018) Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blaney McMurtry LLP
Lawyer(s)

Eric Golden

Court Appointed Receiver
Law Firm / Organization
Rosen Goldberg Inc.
Lawyer(s)

Brahm Rosen

Key Points:

  • Application: The Applicant sought an order to appoint Rosen Goldberg Inc. as the Receiver of the Respondents' property at 1101 Horseshoe Valley Rd. W., Oro-Medonte, Ontario, and to grant charges over the property to the Receiver and its counsel.
  • Respondents' Position: Opposed the appointment of a Receiver, arguing a conflict of interest with the proposed Receiver and proposing an alternative firm.
  • Court's Decision: The application to appoint a Receiver was dismissed.

Reasoning:

  • Just and Convenient Test: The court applied the test under Section 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and Section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act (CJA) to determine if appointing a Receiver was "just or convenient."
  • Factors Considered: The court considered several factors, such as:
    • The nature of the property (vacant land previously used as a golf course).
    • The rights of the secured creditor.
    • The lack of evidence suggesting depreciation of the property's value.
    • The ongoing litigation and issues related to the 2001 Easement affecting property redevelopment.
    • The potential conflict of interest for Rosen Goldberg Inc., already appointed as a Receiver for adjacent lands involved in the dispute.

Conclusion:

  • The court found no immediate necessity or convenience in appointing a Receiver at this time, especially given the conflict concerns. The application was dismissed without prejudice to any other remedies the parties might pursue.
  • The document does not specify any monetary award.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-24-00721511-00CL
Real estate
$ 0
Respondent
04 June 2024