Andrew Duncan Gray

Following an oppression action within CCAA proceedings, the court determined costs claims by Algoma and GIP.

The Essar Defendants agreed to pay $1.7 million in costs to the Monitor.

Algoma sought partial indemnity costs against the Essar Defendants, largely for extensive e-discovery disbursements.

The court rejected the argument that Algoma should be denied costs because it was aligned with the Monitor, finding Algoma's participation and document production were critical to the case.

The court awarded Algoma $1,138,809.19 in costs.

GIP's claim for costs against the Monitor was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the court found success between the Monitor and GIP was divided.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the FX Market brought a motion to certify the action for settlement purposes and approve settlements with four groups of defendants (Barclays, HSBC, RBS, and Standard Chartered PLC).

The court reviewed the motion record and found that all criteria for certification under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied, even with a less rigorous application in a settlement context.

The motion was granted, certifying the action for settlement purposes and approving the settlements.

The applicants (Algoma) sought two declarations: (i) that amounts owing under a promissory note from Portco to Algoma had been set off against amounts Algoma owed to Portco under a Cargo Handling Agreement; and (ii) that Algoma's right to terminate related Port Agreements was not subject to Portco's payment of the GIP Loan, which was tied to the set-off amounts.

The court granted the first declaration, finding that equitable set-off applied given the close connection between the parties and transactions, and the manifest inequity of requiring Algoma to pay Portco while the parent company (EGFL) failed to pay the promissory note.

However, the court denied the second declaration, holding that it would contradict a prior oppression judgment and an assignment agreement which explicitly required the GIP Loan to be paid in full in cash before Algoma could terminate the Port Agreements.

Motions for leave to appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing a motion to require Algoma to resume payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement in the context of CCAA proceedings.

The applicants sought to invoke section 11.01(a) of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to compel payment for post-filing services.

The motion judge had dismissed the motion three times on the same legal grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the leave motions, finding no prima facie merit due to issue estoppel and no significance to the practice, as the issues were specific to the unique agreements underlying the Port Transaction.

Self-represented long-term disability beneficiaries sought leave to appeal a sanction order from the Superior Court of Justice in the Nortel Networks CCAA proceedings.

The applicants challenged their binding status under the 2009 Representation Order for Disabled Employees and the 2010 Employee Settlement Agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the stringent test for leave in CCAA proceedings was not met.

The proposed appeal lacked merit, the applicants were bound by the settlement agreement, and further delays in the protracted litigation were to be avoided.

The court also rejected a late-filed notice of constitutional question challenging sections 6(1) and 11 of the CCAA.

The CCAA monitor of Algoma brought an oppression action under the CBCA against Algoma's parent company, Essar Global, regarding a transaction that transferred Algoma's critical port facilities to a related entity.

The court found that the monitor had standing to bring the action on behalf of creditors.

The court held that the port transaction and a change of control clause giving Essar Global a veto over any buyer of Algoma violated the reasonable expectations of creditors and were oppressive.

The court rejected the business judgment rule defence and ordered the deletion of the change of control clause and amended the agreements to allow Algoma to terminate them after a third-party loan is repaid.

The Receiver sought a discharge order, addressing the enforceability of an indemnity agreement and entitlement to an HST refund.

The Indemnifying Parties argued the receivership proceeding was an improper venue for contract breach claims and raised misrepresentation defenses regarding the indemnity agreement, as well as a potential claim for the Receiver's alleged mismanagement of life insurance policies.

The court found the receivership proceeding an appropriate venue, granted summary judgment on the enforceability of the indemnity agreement, and denied a stay of enforcement.

The court also deferred the HST refund issue for further clarification.

The appellant, an indirect stakeholder, appealed an order approving a plan of arrangement that reorganized the respondent corporation into a limited partnership.

The appellant sought standing to vary the plan to grant it dissenting rights, arguing its economic interests were prejudiced.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the BCE framework, only security holders whose legal rights are affected have standing to challenge a plan of arrangement.

As an indirect shareholder, the appellant had no legal right to interfere in the respondent's business affairs or circumvent the approval of the direct shareholder.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

The applicant, Amarna Associates Inc., sought a declaration that it had validly exercised its right of dissent as a shareholder of Partners Value Investments Inc. (PVI) in connection with a plan of arrangement.

PVI contended that only shareholders registered as of the record date for voting were entitled to exercise dissent rights.

The court found that the Interim Order and the Plan, which incorporated section 185 of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) with modifications, did not impose a record date requirement for dissent rights.

The court emphasized that the plain meaning of "registered holder" referred to registration at the time of exercising dissent rights, and PVI's own circular supported re-registration after the record date for this purpose.

The application was granted, confirming Amarna's valid exercise of dissent rights, and costs were awarded to Amarna on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs, having successfully appealed the dismissal of their class action as time-barred and obtained certification and leave to proceed, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis for the certification and leave motions.

The defendants argued for a significant reduction, citing an "indulgence" (nunc pro tunc order), costs for required steps, limitation period issues, expert reports, divided success, and comparable cases.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, emphasizing the extraordinary nature of the case, the public interest in access to justice for complex class actions, and the substantial success achieved by the plaintiffs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs the full amount of costs claimed, $2,679,277.82, payable by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

The Nortel group of companies filed for insolvency protection across multiple jurisdictions.

Following the sale of Nortel's assets, approximately $7.3 billion was placed in escrow.

The trial judge ordered that these lockbox funds be allocated on a pro rata basis among the various debtor estates, finding that Nortel operated as a highly integrated multinational enterprise and that the master research and development agreement did not govern allocation upon insolvency.

Several parties sought leave to appeal under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals were not prima facie meritorious, did not raise issues of significance to the practice, and would unduly hinder the progress of the proceedings.

The plaintiff sought to certify a securities class action against BlackBerry and its former executives for alleged misrepresentations in financial statements relating to smartphone revenue recognition.

The defendants did not oppose certification except regarding the inclusion of Nasdaq purchasers in a 'global class'.

The court certified the class action for TSX purchasers, finding the requirements of s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, and adjourned the 'global class' issue to be determined on a future forum non conveniens motion.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to pursue a statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim arising from the defendant issuer’s accounting treatment of smartphone sales.

The motion concerned whether the issuer’s use of sell‑in revenue recognition for a newly launched product violated GAAP and whether a later news release constituted a public correction of the alleged misrepresentation.

The court held that the plaintiff had presented credible expert evidence establishing a reasonable possibility that the accounting treatment materially misstated revenues.

The court further articulated principles governing the “public correction” requirement under s. 138.3 and concluded that the issuer’s subsequent disclosure of a shift to sell‑through accounting and a large inventory charge was reasonably capable of revealing the alleged earlier misrepresentation.

Leave to proceed with the statutory claim was therefore granted.

In a joint cross-border insolvency trial concerning the allocation of approximately $7.3 billion in lockbox funds from the sale of global business lines and residual intellectual property, the court interpreted the Master R&D Agreement as an operating transfer-pricing document that granted limited licence rights but did not govern post-insolvency allocation.

The court rejected both the position that one Canadian debtor owned all sale proceeds by virtue of legal title and the position that the EMEA debtors jointly owned all intellectual property by operation of law.

Applying unjust enrichment principles and the broad remedial jurisdiction available in CCAA proceedings, the court held that a just result required a pro rata allocation among debtor estates based on allowed claims.

The court further directed that duplicate claims be counted only once for allocation purposes, that intercompany claims be included, and that interim distribution proposals be brought forward.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision granting the plaintiffs leave to pursue claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The plaintiffs alleged the corporate defendant misrepresented its equity market risk by failing to disclose its decision to abandon hedging and reinsurance of guaranteed products.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the plaintiffs had a reasonable possibility of success at trial and that the common law misrepresentation claims were suitable for certification alongside the statutory claims.

The applicant shareholder brought an application under s. 247 of the Canada Business Corporations Act seeking an order that the respondent corporation comply with and refrain from breaching s. 150 regarding proxy solicitation.

The dispute arose from a corporate press release issued during a proxy contest, which the applicant alleged constituted an unlawful solicitation of proxies prior to delivery of a management proxy circular.

The court considered whether the communication was “calculated to result in the procurement or withholding of a proxy” within the meaning of the Act.

Interpreting solicitation broadly but contextually, the court found the press release primarily responded to criticisms and explained corporate actions rather than encouraging shareholders to submit proxies.

The press release therefore did not constitute a solicitation and no breach of s. 150 occurred.

Following certification of a securities class action, the court determined the appropriate costs award arising from the leave and certification motions.

The moving parties sought more than $1.18 million in fees and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The court emphasized the need for transparency, proportionality, and historical benchmarking when assessing certification-motion costs under Rule 57.01(1).

After adjusting excessive hourly rates and disbursements, and considering historical averages for comparable certification motions, the court fixed costs at $467,234 payable forthwith, with an additional $100,000 in disbursements payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to bring an action against Manulife Financial Corporation and its former executives.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the adequacy of Manulife's risk management practices and failed to disclose its massive unhedged exposure to equity market risk prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility of success at trial, and certified the action as a class proceeding, certifying seven common issues.