|
Civil Litigation Cases - Costs - Non-Compliance. Proex Logistics Inc. (Re)
In Proex Logistics Inc. (Re) (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an insolvency appeal, here brought against a "motion judge’s decision to deny ... standing, and to allow the trustee’s motion to consolidate estates, pay the claims of the respondent ... distribute any surplus to the equity holders, and approve the trustee’s report".
In an issue styled as one of 'standing', the court considered it's jurisdiction to stay, dismiss or otherwise order against a party who is non-compliant with prior orders (here, 'outstanding cost orders'):(1) Standing in light of the Outstanding Costs Order
[61] The appellant Rana disagrees with the motion judge’s decision to deny him standing to challenge the Trustee’s motion on the basis that Rana had dissipated assets while not paying any of the significant outstanding costs orders for over a year.
[62] If the motion judge’s decision was within the bounds of her discretion under the Rules, this court cannot interfere: Garrett v. Oldfield, 2016 ONCA 424 at paras. 2, 6, leave to appeal refused, [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 350; McLean v. Wolfson, 2021 ONCA 928, at para. 13.
....
[70] Based on the transfer of these funds, the motion judge correctly held that, while Rana claimed he was impecunious:[T]here is evidence of dissipation of his assets (such as the large gifts of money to his sons and his purported lack of knowledge of the proceeds from the sale of his residential home) and he continues to retain and pay sophisticated counsel. [71] This contravened rules 57.03 [SS: 'Costs of a Motion - Contested Motion'] and 60.12 [SS: 'Failure to Comply with Interlocutory Order'] of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
[72] After comprehensively reviewing the case law, the motion judge concluded that:The court has discretion under the Rules to prevent a litigant who has flagrantly ignored costs awards from continuing proceedings. The court may intervene to bring ‘some finality to the action’. [Citations omitted.] [73] She also noted Paul’s submission that further delay would result in prejudice to Paul as “it will result in more costs that Paul will be unable to recover from Rana.” She concluded that:The facts of this case demonstrate Rana’s disregard for the court’s costs awards. Accordingly, in the circumstances, I am not prepared to allow this late breaking attempt for Rana to further delay the finality of these proceedings. [74] The motion judge’s decision to deny standing in these circumstances is amply supported by the case law: see e.g., Burrell v. Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board (2007), 48 C.P.C. (6th) 349 (Ont. Master), aff’d (2008), 66 C.P.C. (6th) 223 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 63 leave to appeal to Div. Ct. refused, 2008 CarswellOnt 8050 (Div. Ct.); Schwilgin v. Szivy, 2015 ONCA 816, at paras. 23-25.
[75] I see no error in the motion judge’s decision to deny standing and would reject this ground of appeal.
|
