Alexander Soutter

Following the approval of an amended restructuring proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, two limited partner applicant groups sought costs for their participation in the proceedings.

The court declined to award costs, noting the Commercial List practice of generally not awarding costs in restructuring matters.

The court emphasized that restructuring is not a classic adversarial proceeding and that stakeholders should not be discouraged from participating by the threat of costs.

No order as to costs was made for the bankruptcy proceeding, though the court left open the possibility of addressing costs in the related civil proceedings if funds flow back to the partnership.

The debtors, YG Limited Partnership and YSL Residences Inc., sought court approval for version 2 of Amended Proposal #3 under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, following the court's previous rejection of an earlier proposal.

The amended proposal addressed the court's prior concerns by treating related party claims as equity, ensuring construction lien claims did not dilute unsecured creditors' recoveries, and providing that any surplus funds would be returned to the limited partnership.

The court found the amended proposal to be reasonable, calculated to benefit the general body of creditors, and advanced in good faith, and therefore granted the order approving the proposal.

Following a motion where the tenant successfully obtained relief from forfeiture and the landlord successfully obtained all rent arrears, both parties sought costs.

The landlord sought $300,000 based on partial indemnity and an unaccepted offer to settle, while the tenant sought $218,388 or that each party bear their own costs.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs, noting the divided success, the withdrawal of the landlord's offer to settle prior to the hearing, and the unique and unforeseen circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The debtors, YG Limited Partnership and YSL Residences Inc., sought court approval of a bankruptcy proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Two groups of limited partners opposed the proposal, arguing it was not reasonable, was advanced in bad faith, and improperly treated related-party advances as debt rather than equity.

The court refused to approve the proposal, finding that the related-party claims were equity claims, the proposal sponsor had improperly induced unaffected lien claimants to vote as affected creditors, and the general partner had breached its fiduciary duties by advancing a proposal designed to benefit related parties at the expense of the limited partners.

The plaintiff tenant, a non-essential retailer, ceased paying rent during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing the landlord breached the lease by failing to provide a first-class shopping centre due to government-mandated closures and restrictions.

The landlord sought to terminate the lease.

The court held that the landlord was not in breach of the lease, as it was complying with provincial laws, and the tenant was not entitled to an abatement of rent.

However, the court granted the tenant relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act, allowing a structured deferral of rent arrears with interest, noting the tenant's prior unblemished record and the unprecedented nature of the pandemic.

The plaintiffs, former executives of the Durham College student association (DCSI), sued Durham College and DCSI following their termination by DCSI.

Durham College brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against it, arguing it had no involvement in the termination and owed no duty to supervise DCSI's employment relationships.

The court granted the motion, finding that the governing legislation prohibited Durham College from interfering with DCSI's normal activities, precluding any duty of care.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of mental distress, specific performance, and discrimination due to lack of evidence and insufficient pleadings.

The plaintiff car dealership sought summary judgment against the defendants for breach of a vehicle purchase agreement.

The defendant, Mr. Cater, failed to secure financing for a vehicle but retained possession of it for nearly a year.

The plaintiff sought the purchase price and daily usage fees.

The defendants counterclaimed for harassment.

The court granted summary judgment in part, finding the agreement binding and awarding the plaintiff daily usage fees against Mr. Cater.

The claim for the full purchase price was dismissed as it was not explicitly provided for in the contract's default clause after repossession.

The action against Ms. Parker was dismissed as she was not a party to the agreement.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed due to a lack of evidence.

The defendants moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for amounts owing on four truck leases.

The court found no procedural irregularity in the service of the statement of claim or the obtaining of default judgment.

However, applying the five-factor test for setting aside a regularly obtained default judgment, the court determined that the defendants had a plausible explanation for their delay in responding and an arguable defence on the merits, particularly regarding the authenticity of signatures on two disputed leases and the application of payments.

The court emphasized the importance of resolving matters on their merits and found that allowing the defence to proceed was in the interests of the administration of justice.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.