Aubrey Kauffman

Voyager Digital Ltd. applied under Part IV of the CCAA for an Initial Recognition Order of its Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States.

The central issue was whether the US proceeding should be recognized as a 'foreign main proceeding' or a 'foreign non-main proceeding', which depended on determining the company's Centre of Main Interests (COMI).

Despite being incorporated in British Columbia and listed on the TSX, the court found that the company's COMI was in the US, where its operations, management, and principal assets were located.

The court recognized the US proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and granted the requested stay.

The respondent sought costs of $85,885.03 on a partial indemnity basis following the applicant's unsuccessful application for leave to appeal an arbitral award.

The applicant argued costs should be capped at $40,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the issues were of moderate complexity and the parties' costs outlines were similar.

After making a slight reduction for duplication of work and excessive time spent by lead counsel, the court awarded the respondent costs of $79,000 all-inclusive.

The appellants, whose assets were managed by a court-appointed receiver, were reassessed by the CRA for unpaid taxes arising from shareholder loans.

They sought to sue the receiver for gross negligence in failing to engage in tax planning.

The accounting firm also sought leave to crossclaim against the receiver.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision dismissing the actions, finding that leave was required to sue the receiver and that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct.

Schonfeld Inc., acting as a court-appointed Monitor and Receiver, sought to dismiss an action commenced against it by the monitored parties for alleged failure to engage in tax planning.

The monitored parties commenced the action without obtaining leave of the court and subsequently brought a motion for leave nunc pro tunc.

The court held that leave was required under the terms of the Monitor and Receiver Orders.

The court refused to grant leave nunc pro tunc, finding that the proposed claim lacked foundation because the Receiver's mandate did not include tax planning, and the pleadings failed to establish gross negligence or wilful misconduct as required to overcome the Receiver's discharge and release.

The action and a related crossclaim were dismissed.

Honeywell brought a motion in Comstock's CCAA proceedings seeking an order directing Comstock to disclaim a subcontract or, alternatively, lifting the stay of proceedings to allow Honeywell to terminate the subcontract.

Comstock had ceased performance on the construction project and stopped paying Honeywell.

The court held it could not force a disclaimer under section 32 of the CCAA without the Monitor's approval.

However, because Comstock was no longer actively involved in the project and it would not form part of the restructuring, the court lifted the stay of proceedings to allow Honeywell to pursue its options.