Christopher M. Stanek

Representative Work

Chris' notable reported cases include:

• Demir v. Kilic: In this Divisional Court Appeal, Chris successfully appealed the decision of a Superior Court Judge that overturned the findings of a Construction Lien Master and restored the Master's findings at trial.
• Industrial Refrigerated Systems Inc. v. Quality Meat Packers Ltd. where Chris successfully argued to preserve a construction lien against the related-party owner of the premises where his client had contracted with a bankrupt tenant.
• Chahine Badr v. 2305136 Ontario Inc. where, after an eight-day trial on the Commercial List, Chris successfully proved his client's half interest in the company based upon an oral shareholders' agreement and the oppression remedy provisions of the Ontario Business Corporations Act. To enforce this judgment, Chris was then was successful in seeking personal judgment for his client's shareholders' loan.
• Lash v. Lash Point Association Corp.: Chris successfully maintained his clients' rights to a vacation property as minority members of the not-for-profit owner in a Plan of Arrangement. This was the first Plan of Arrangement determined under the provincial Not-for-Profit Corporations Act.
• Bitton v. Checroune where after a four-day trial, Chris successfully defended his client's interest in Toronto development land and resisted an oppression remedy claim under the Ontario Business Corporations Act that would have forced his client to fund a defunct development project.
• Basegmez v. Akman: Acting on behalf of majority shareholders without control of the business, Chris successfully involved the oppression remedy provisions of the Ontario Business Corporations Act to place a well-known hotel into receivership.
• Mehedi v. 2057161 Ontario Inc. (o/a Job Success): As part of the Amicus Project of Pro Bono Ontario and the Ontario Court of Appeal, Chris successfully assisted a self-represented litigant present their motion for leave to submit fresh evidence in the form of an episode of the CBC television show Marketplace to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
• John v. Millar, a shareholder's dispute in which Chris successfully defended a commercial landlord.
• Peoples Trust Co. v. Rose of Sharon (Ontario) Retirement Community, in which Chris represented a lender seeking priority over a construction lien.
• Sagebrush Building Ltd. v. Harris, in which Chris represented a victim of a fraud perpetrated by an employee.
• 601039 Ontario Ltd. v. FirstOntario Credit Union Ltd. in which Chris successfully defended a credit union from allegations that it was liable for its customer's fraud.
• Chan v. Ontario in which Chris successfully represented nine financial institutions in defending a claim found by the Court to be an abuse of process.
• Zwaig Associates Inc. v. Mok, in which Chris successfully argued to enforce a personal guarantee in favour of a trustee in bankruptcy before both the Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal.
• Walters v. Clark, where Chris was successful in overturning the judgment of a Superior Court Judge on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
• Re Golden Mile Bowl Inc., an appeal in which Chris successfully represented a trustee in bankruptcy with respect to a challenge to the Registrar in Bankruptcy's approval of the trustee's fees and disbursements.
• Rakowski v. Malagerio, in which Chris successfully defended the right of the incorporated student government of a Community College to administer its own corporate bylaws.
• PSC Industrial Services Canada Inc. v. City of Thunder Bay where Chris successfully argued for the production of confidential city council documents concerning the demolition of a grain elevator on city-owned property.
• Microvoice Applications, Inc. v. ICE Consultants Inc. in which Chris successfully argued before both the Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal that a U.S. corporation had the right to litigate in Ontario.
• Arcon Group Inc. v. 1371344 Ontario Inc., in which Chris successfully argued that the construction lien registered against his client's land violated the technical requirements of the Construction Lien Act and was discharged.