Summit Glen Waterloo/2000 Developments Inc. (Bankrupt), Re, (2016) 351 O.A.C. 241 (CA)

JudgeCronk, Pepall and Lauwers, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateMay 30, 2016
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(2016), 351 O.A.C. 241 (CA);2016 ONCA 406

Summit Glen Waterloo/2000 Dev., Re (2016), 351 O.A.C. 241 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.027

In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Summit Glen Waterloo/2000 Developments Inc., of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario

A. Farber & Partners Inc., the Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Montor Business Corporation, Annopol Holdings Limited and Summit Glen Brantford Holdings Inc. (applicant/appellant/ respondent by way of cross-appeal) v. Morris Goldfinger , Goldfinger Jazrawy Diagnostic Services Ltd. , Summit Glen Bridge Street Inc., Mahvash Lechcier-Kimel, Annopol Holdings Limited and Summit Glen Brantford Inc. (respondents) ( respondents/appellants by way of cross-appeal )

(C57879; 2016 ONCA 406)

Indexed As: Summit Glen Waterloo/2000 Developments Inc. (Bankrupt), Re

Ontario Court of Appeal

Cronk, Pepall and Lauwers, JJ.A.

May 30, 2016.

Summary:

A. Farber & Partners Inc. (Farber), in its capacity as the trustee in bankruptcy of five companies, including Summit Glen Waterloo/2000 Developments Inc. (SG Waterloo) and Summit Glen Brantford Holdings Inc. (SG Brantford), asserted claims to funds. Farber asserted that transactions arising from a settlement that SG Waterloo's principal (Lechcier-Kimel) and some of Lechcier-Kimel's companies had entered into with an investor (Goldfinger) were (i) transfers at undervalue under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act; (ii) unjust preferences under s. 4 of the Assignments and Preferences Act; (iii) fraudulent conveyances under s. 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act (the FCA); (iv) oppressive under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (the OBCA); and (v) an unjust enrichment. The claims were heard in a hybrid trial, together with the subject matter of two other court files.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 6635, rejected Farber's assertions respecting the transactions arising from the settlement. The court set aside a $471,000 payment from SG Brantford to Goldfinger, finding that the payment was contrary to s. of the FCA and oppressive under s. 248 of the OBCA. Farber appealed the refusal to set aside the transactions arising from the settlement. Goldfinger cross-appealed the decision to set aside the $471,000 payment.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.

Editor's note: For decisions in two companion appeals see 351 O.A.C. 267 and 351 O.A.C. 277.

Bankruptcy - Topic 822

Acts of bankruptcy - Fraudulent conveyances - Conveyance to defraud, defeat or delay creditors - See paragraphs 72 to 77.

Bankruptcy - Topic 7211.1

Setting aside transactions prior to bankruptcy - Fraudulent preferences - What constitutes an arm's length transaction - See paragraphs 64 to 87.

Bankruptcy - Topic 7220

Setting aside transactions prior to bankruptcy - Fraudulent preferences - Intention - General - See paragraphs 64 to 84 and 128 to 138.

Bankruptcy - Topic 7231

Setting aside transactions prior to bankruptcy - Fraudulent preferences - What constitutes a preference - See paragraphs 78 to 82 and 128 to 138.

Bankruptcy - Topic 7235

Setting aside transactions prior to bankruptcy - Preferences - What constitutes a transfer at undervalue - See paragraphs 51 to 77.

Company Law - Topic 9781

Actions against corporations and directors - Action for oppressive conduct - When available - See paragraphs 88 to 104 and 119 to 125.

Company Law - Topic 9783

Actions against corporations and directors - Action for oppressive conduct - Persons entitled - See paragraphs 95 to 97 and 119 to 125.

Company Law - Topic 9785

Actions against corporations and directors - Action for oppressive conduct - Oppression, prejudice or disregard of interests - See paragraphs 88 to 104.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 1458

Fraudulent conveyances and preferences - Impeachable conveyances and preferences under modern statutes - Intention required - See paragraphs 78 to 87 and 128 to 138.

Restitution - Topic 64

Unjust enrichment - General - Juristic reason for enrichment - See paragraphs 105 to 118.

Counsel:

Patrick Shea and Brent Arnold, for the appellant/respondent by way of cross-appeal;

Maurice J. Neirinck and Michael McQuade, for the respondents/appellants by way of cross-appeal.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on October 14 and 15, 2015, by Cronk, Pepall and Lauwers, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Pepall, J.A., released the following judgment for the court on May 30, 2016.

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 4 ' 8, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 12, 2022
    ...v. Scott, 2019 ONSC 5108, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, Canada v. McLarty, 2008 SCC 26, Montor Business Corporation v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406, Canadian Dredge & Dock Co. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 662, ChristineDeJong Medicine Professional Corp. v. DBDC Spadina Ltd., 2019 SCC 30,......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Partnerships and Corporations. Fourth Edition
    • August 5, 2018
    ...450, 635 A Farber & Partners Inc v Goldfinger, 2013 ONSC 6635, aff’d (sub nom Montor Business Corp (Trustee of) v Goldfinger) 2016 ONCA 406 ....................................................................................470, 476 Aas v Benham, [1891] 2 Ch 244 (CA) .............................
  • Doyle Salewski Inc. v. Scott, 2019 ONSC 5108
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • August 30, 2019
    ...ss. 95(1)(b) of the BIA: see Piikani, at paras. 22-27, cited by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Montor Business Corporation v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406, [2016] W.D.F.L. 3770, at para. [204] Ordinary commercial dealing means that the parties are acting pursuant to “generally accepted commerc......
  • Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. v. Scott,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • July 4, 2022
    ...at paras 203-4, citing Canada v. McLarty, 2008 SCC 26, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 79, at para. 43, and Montor Business Corporation v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406, 36 C.B.R. (6th) 169, at para. [25]       I agree with the appellants that, in applying these criteria, it is im......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. v. Scott, 2022 ONCA 509
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • July 4, 2022
    ...at paras 203-4, citing Canada v. McLarty, 2008 SCC 26, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 79, at para. 43, and Montor Business Corporation v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406, 36 C.B.R. (6th) 169, at para. [25]       I agree with the appellants that, in applying these criteria, it is im......
  • Doyle Salewski Inc. v. Scott, 2019 ONSC 5108
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • August 30, 2019
    ...ss. 95(1)(b) of the BIA: see Piikani, at paras. 22-27, cited by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Montor Business Corporation v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406, [2016] W.D.F.L. 3770, at para. [204] Ordinary commercial dealing means that the parties are acting pursuant to “generally accepted commerc......
  • Devry Smith Frank LLP v. Chopra, 2018 ONSC 1303
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • February 26, 2018
    ...O.J. No. 481 (S.C.J.).[9] [2006] O.J. No. 481 (S.C.J.).[10] R.S.O. 1990, c. F.29.[11] Montor Business Corp. (Trustee of) v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406, aff’g 2013 ONSC 6635; Havel v. Galemar Holdings Ltd. (1981), 36 O.R. (2d) 348 (H.C.J.); Ferguson v. Lastewka, [1946] O.R. 577 (H.C.J.); Mulc......
  • Caroti v. Vuletic, 2022 ONSC 4695
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • August 15, 2022
    ...allow the Defendants to retain the benefit without compensating those who provided it: Montor Business Corp. (Trustee of) v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406 at paras 109-114; Simonin v. Simonin, 2010 ONCA 900 at para [596]   In my view, the equitable remedy should be awarded with a valu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 4 ' 8, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 12, 2022
    ...v. Scott, 2019 ONSC 5108, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, Canada v. McLarty, 2008 SCC 26, Montor Business Corporation v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406, Canadian Dredge & Dock Co. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 662, ChristineDeJong Medicine Professional Corp. v. DBDC Spadina Ltd., 2019 SCC 30,......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 30 - June 3)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 14, 2016
    ...motion to continue his action against Kamran. The $141,000 costs award was reduced by $7,500. Montor Business Corporation v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406 [Cronk, Pepall and Lauwers Patrick Shea and Brent Arnold, for the appellant/respondent by way of cross-appeal Maurice J. Neirinck and Michae......
  • Ponzi Scheme Participants Ordered To Return Payments That Were "Too Good To Be True"
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 12, 2022
    ...at paras 203-4, citing Canada v. McLarty, 2008 SCC 26, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 79, at para. 43, and Montor Business Corporation v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406, 36 C.B.R. (6th) 169, at para. The trial judge found that, since the payments were admitted by LS, the only question was whether the parties w......
  • 'Just Friends' Or Something More? Court Finds Shareholders In Closely-Held Corporation Were Dealing At Arm's Length
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 19, 2019
    ...293 ("Piikani"). Piikani has been cited approvingly by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Montor Business Corp. (Trustee of) v. Goldfinger, 2016 ONCA 406 ("Goldfinger"). Kulawick provides more comfort to clients in closely-held corporations that the court will not, simply by the nature of the p......
1 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Partnerships and Corporations. Fourth Edition
    • August 5, 2018
    ...450, 635 A Farber & Partners Inc v Goldfinger, 2013 ONSC 6635, aff’d (sub nom Montor Business Corp (Trustee of) v Goldfinger) 2016 ONCA 406 ....................................................................................470, 476 Aas v Benham, [1891] 2 Ch 244 (CA) .............................

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT