Alexia Parente

This is the penalty phase of a civil contempt proceeding.

The respondent, an unlicensed individual, was found to have breached a permanent injunction by misusing a licensed professional engineer's seal on building permit applications submitted to the City of Windsor.

The respondent misappropriated the seal on 29 of 48 pages bearing the engineer's seal, placed seals on drawings never prepared by the licensed engineer, altered dates on drawings, and resubmitted them as updated documents.

The court imposed a 14-day custodial sentence, finding the breach was knowing, deliberate, and repeated over several years.

The respondent showed no genuine remorse, continued to deny wrongdoing, and failed to comply with multiple court orders throughout the proceedings.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs of $21,144.85 payable in quarterly installments of $3,000 commencing January 1, 2026.

The applicant, Harry Littler, a director of CMC Credit Ltd., sought an order compelling the respondents to provide access to CMC’s books and records, including loan agreements.

The respondent, Michael Smith, objected on the basis of privacy legislation (PIPEDA) and alleged improper purpose.

The court found that directors have an unconditional statutory right to inspect corporate records under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, and that PIPEDA does not prevent such access.

The application was granted, and costs were fixed in favour of the applicant.

The court found Benabdallah Chouchaoui in contempt of a permanent injunction order prohibiting him and his company from holding out as engineers, engaging in the practice of professional engineering, or using an engineering seal without proper authorization under the Professional Engineers Act.

The decision details a pattern of non-compliance, including misuse of another engineer’s seal, failure to comply with court-ordered procedures, and evasive conduct.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the applicant and scheduled a sentencing hearing.

DCL Corporation, an insolvent company under CCAA protection, sought court approval for a stalking horse agreement, bidding procedures for the sale of substantially all its assets, and a sealing order for confidential information.

The motion was unopposed and supported by the Monitor and key creditors.

The court granted the relief, finding the proposed sales process fair, transparent, commercially efficacious, and designed to optimize asset recovery, consistent with established insolvency principles.

The sealing order was also granted, applying the Sherman Estate test, on the basis that it protected important public interests in confidentiality and contractual sanctity.

Paladin Labs Inc., as foreign representative for itself and Paladin Labs Canadian Holding Inc. (the Canadian Debtors), brought a motion under section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for recognition and enforcement of two orders granted by the United States Bankruptcy Court in their Chapter 11 cases: a Bidding Procedures Order and a Bar Date Order.

The motion was unopposed.

The court granted the motion, finding that recognition was consistent with principles of comity and Canadian public policy, and would enable the Canadian Debtors to proceed with the sale process to maximize asset value and ascertain claims.

LTL Management LLC, an indirect subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, sought recognition of its second US Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) in Canada.

This application followed the dismissal of its initial Chapter 11 filing due to insufficient immediate financial distress.

The new Chapter 11 was based on a negotiated Plan Support Agreement establishing an $8.9 billion trust for talc-related claims.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the recognition order, along with ancillary relief including a stay of proceedings against LTL and related Canadian co-defendants, and the appointment of Ernst & Young Inc. as Information Officer.

The court found the US proceeding to be a foreign main proceeding, with LTL's Centre of Main Interests (COMI) in the United States, and that the relief was appropriate to coordinate proceedings and ensure equal treatment of talc-related claims.

The application was unopposed.