Adam Grossi

The Bondfield Group, a major construction company, sought CCAA protection due to insolvency, over $1 billion in active contracts, and over 200 lawsuits.

The application was unopposed and resulted from extensive stakeholder negotiations.

The court granted an initial order for CCAA protection, including a stay of proceedings, approval of a tailored $8 million Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) facility funded by Zurich Insurance, an Administration Charge for professional fees, and a Directors' Charge for $3 million (excluding John Aquino).

The court emphasized the public interest in completing critical infrastructure projects and the preference for CCAA over receivership to preserve enterprise value.

The applicant sought the release of $25,000 held in trust following a share purchase agreement, which the respondents withheld pending verification of the working condition of returned corporate property (software keys and cell phones).

The court dismissed the respondents' motion to transfer the application to a different venue due to non-compliance with practice directions and the interest of justice.

On the merits, the court found no express or implied term in the agreement authorizing the respondents to impose a unilateral holdback on the share purchase funds for property verification.

The court ordered the release of the remaining funds to the applicant upon the return of the specified corporate property.

In a priority dispute under the Construction Lien Act, the court determined the relative priorities of several mortgagees and construction lien claimants.

The court held that professional fees incurred by a first mortgagee to protect its security constituted an 'advance' under section 78(6) of the Act, granting it priority.

The court also found that a $10 million advance made jointly to two borrowers under a second mortgage was an advance in respect of that mortgage, giving it priority over the lien claimants.

However, the court ruled that an advance made under a loan agreement to a third party was not an advance in respect of a collateral mortgage given by the developer as guarantor, meaning the lien claimants had priority over the collateral mortgage.

The defendant brought a motion seeking a determination that a construction lien was registered outside the time limits prescribed by the Construction Lien Act.

The moving party argued the lien was invalid because the only invoice for work performed had been delivered more than 45 days before the lien was registered.

The responding party produced time records showing additional work at the project site within 45 days of the lien registration.

The court found insufficient evidence to determine whether the work fell within the lien period and noted disputes about the date of last work and substantial completion.

Concluding that genuine issues requiring a trial remained, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment.