Asad Ali Moten

In a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act proceeding, the applicant Hudson's Bay Company ULC and related entities sought approval of an Art Collection Auction Process Order to authorize the auction of artwork and artifacts held by the company.

The court approved the proposed auction procedures, which included both live and online auction components.

The court noted that certain items were excluded from the auction, including the Royal Charter, artifacts previously donated to the Manitoba Museum, the company's reference collection donated to the Archives of Manitoba, and war memorials.

Additionally, 24 artifacts believed to be of Indigenous origin or representative of Indigenous culture were excluded from the auction and would be donated to appropriate custodians in consultation with Indigenous communities.

The court found that the proposed procedures satisfied the applicable legal tests and represented the most appropriate process for disposing of the art collection while balancing the interests of creditors with cultural and historical considerations.

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to set aside a previous order that dismissed most of her extensive claim against numerous defendants, alleging fraud or newly discovered facts.

She also sought to lift a stay of action, strike statements of defence, obtain summary judgment, and allow for intervention.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of fraud related to the prior order and no newly discovered facts that would have altered the outcome.

The court emphasized the stringent test for setting aside orders, particularly those made under Rule 2.1, and deemed the other requested relief moot.

This is a panel review of a single judge's order refusing an extension of time to appeal a summary trial judgment.

The moving party sought to introduce fresh evidence, which was denied due to lack of satisfactory explanation for its delay and minimal impact on the outcome.

The panel upheld the single judge's decision, finding no error in principle or misapprehension of material evidence in applying the test for extending time to appeal.

The panel agreed that the moving party had not formed an intention to appeal within the prescribed time and that the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The review motion was dismissed.

The moving party, Ms. Sun, sought an extension of time to appeal a trial judgment concerning a failed residential real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that Ms. Sun failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant period, provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, or show sufficient merit in the proposed appeal.

The court also addressed the proper procedure for swearing affidavits when the deponent does not understand English and clarified that the appeal period runs from the release of reasons, not the signing of the judgment.

This decision addresses the issues of rent differential damages and trial costs following a partial allowance of an appeal.

The appellant argued that the respondent had not suffered damages due to a forfeited $200,000 deposit.

The court agreed, ordering no rent differential damages payable.

The parties also resolved the trial costs issue by agreeing to set aside the original $300,000 costs award and for each party to bear its own trial costs.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease for refrigerated premises and the calculation of damages for breach of contract.

The appellant tenant challenged the trial judge's findings on lease certainty, the ascertainability of the commencement date based on "substantial completion," and the quantum of damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the lease was valid and that the tenant was in breach for failing to take possession.

However, the Court found a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's determination of the lease commencement date, ruling that "substantial completion" occurred later, on the date of CFIA registration, not an earlier date based on general occupancy readiness.

This error led to a recalculation of damages, with several categories of damages (lost rent, taxes, utilities, maintenance, administrative fees) being set aside.

The Court also set aside a commission settlement award, finding the landlord failed to prove it incurred the loss.

The appeal was allowed on the issue of damages, but otherwise dismissed, with costs awarded to the appellant.

The moving party, a co-owner of the matrimonial home, sought to transfer a mortgage enforcement action commenced by the bank in Milton to Brampton, and to have it tried together with an ongoing family law application involving her son and daughter-in-law.

The court granted the transfer, finding that Brampton was a significantly better venue given the location of the property and the parties.

The court declined to order the matters be tried together at this early stage, but ordered that evidence obtained in each proceeding apply equally to the other to avoid duplication.