Royal Bank of Canada v. 1227942 Ontario Limited

Royal Bank of Canada v. 1227942 Ontario Limited

The court allowed the appeal, set aside paragraph 3 of the motion judge's November 25, 2010 order because it conflicted with the prior April 18, 2007 order, and remitted the question of the Equitable Receiver's and counsel's fees and disbursements to the motion judge for reassessment; the court further ordered that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 ONCA 332
Parties
Respondent: Royal Bank of Canada; Appellant: 1227942 Ontario Limited; Appellant: 1227944 Ontario Limited; Appellant: Victor Vetro also known as Vittorrio Joseph Vetro; Appellant: Linda Montanari
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Superior Court Motion Judge Order (baltman J.)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; paragraph 3 of the November 25, 2010 order set aside and matter referred back to the motion judge for reassessment; stay on dispersal of sale proceeds until entitlement determined; costs to appellant $10,000 inclusive.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Equitable Receiver Fees, Reassessment of Fees, Stay on Distribution, Interpretation of Prior Court Order
Source Language
en
Civil Collection Equitable Receivership Appeal Costs Costs Assessment Equitable Receiver Fees Reassessment of Fees +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Bank of Canada

Respondent

1227942 Ontario Limited

Appellant

1227944 Ontario Limited

Appellant

Victor Vetro also known as Vittorrio Joseph Vetro

Appellant

Linda Montanari

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Superior Court Motion Judge Order (baltman J.)

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 3 of the motion judge's order improperly charged Montanari with equitable receiver fees incurred after she satisfied the judgment on April 27, 2007
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge failed to give effect to the prior April 18, 2007 order of Justice Quigley allocating post-payment fees to Vetro
  3. 3 Whether proceeds of sale should be withheld pending determination of entitlement to receiver fees

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the appeal, set aside paragraph 3 of the motion judge's November 25, 2010 order because it conflicted with the prior April 18, 2007 order, and remitted the question of the Equitable Receiver's and counsel's fees and disbursements to the motion judge for reassessment; the court further ordered that proceeds of the imminent sale not be disbursed until entitlement issues are determined and awarded costs to the appellant in the amount of $10,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; paragraph 3 of the November 25, 2010 order set aside and matter referred back to the motion judge for reassessment; stay on dispersal of sale proceeds until entitlement determined; costs to appellant $10,000 inclusive.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Paragraph 3 of the November 25, 2010 order set aside