Andrea Lockhart

The applicants, RGL Reservoir Management Inc. and 10504360 Canada Inc., sought an interim order under section 192(4) of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to approve procedural matters for meetings of secured debtholders and shareholders to vote on a proposed plan of arrangement.

The arrangement aimed to effect a recapitalization transaction, reducing RGL's indebtedness by approximately $333 million and annual cash interest expense by $20 million.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed arrangement met the statutory requirements of the CBCA, was put forward in good faith for a valid business purpose, and that it was impracticable to achieve the fundamental change through other CBCA provisions.

The court also approved a limited stay of proceedings to facilitate the transaction.

In the context of CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought approval of a grievance claims procedure to resolve approximately 3,000 outstanding grievances.

USW Local 2251 opposed the motion, arguing that the CCAA stay did not apply to grievances, that imposing a new procedure impermissibly amended the collective agreement, and that staying the grievance process violated section 2(d) of the Charter.

The court granted the motion, holding that the CCAA permits staying grievance procedures and imposing a claims process, which does not constitute an amendment to the collective agreement.

The court also found no Charter violation and held that under the doctrine of paramountcy, the CCAA stay provisions prevail over the grievance arbitration requirements in the provincial Labour Relations Act.

The moving parties, a group of affiliated companies, sought leave to appeal a judgment setting aside an ex parte CCAA Initial Order.

The respondents, creditors of a Singapore subsidiary, successfully argued before the application judge that the CCAA court lacked jurisdiction over the subsidiary.

A single judge of the Court of Appeal held he had jurisdiction to hear the leave motion but refused leave, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the real debtors were Singapore companies with little connection to Canada and that the evidence did not support the initial ex parte findings of insolvency and intertwined finances.

The Crown sought to admit three out-of-court statements made by the complainant, Terry Solomon, regarding an assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

The statements were made to: (1) his cousin Bertie Jean; (2) Police Constable Everett Dunbar; and (3) Police Constable Noel Hudson.

The complainant had left Canada and was unavailable to testify.

The Crown argued admissibility under the res gestae/spontaneous utterance exception or the principled exception to the hearsay rule based on necessity and inherent reliability.

The defence opposed admission and argued that if admitted, the 911 call in which the complainant stated he did not know who assaulted him should also be admitted for trial fairness.

The court found that none of the three statements met the threshold reliability requirement and excluded all three.