Brett Harrison

In a CCAA proceeding, the Monitor appealed a Claims Officer's decision allowing a landlord's claim for liquidated damages under a lease guarantee.

The Monitor argued the Claims Officer failed to consider a lease provision regarding the sale of the property.

The landlord cross-appealed the Claims Officer's finding that it breached a duty to be forthright by failing to disclose the property's foreclosure.

The Superior Court granted the Monitor's appeal, remitting the quantification issue back to the Claims Officer due to an error of law in contractual interpretation.

The court dismissed the landlord's cross-appeal, affirming that creditors owe a duty of forthrightness in a CCAA claims process.

The applicant, GuestLogix Inc., sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for a stay of proceedings, the appointment of a Monitor, and authorization for super-priority charges.

The court found the applicant to be an insolvent debtor company with over $5 million in unsecured liabilities, making it eligible for CCAA protection.

The court granted the stay and the requested Administration and Directors' Charges.

However, due to a potential conflict of interest raised by a secured creditor, the court declined to appoint the proposed Monitor, Deloitte Restructuring Inc., and instead appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.

A court-appointed receiver sought an order compelling several service providers to remit commissions allegedly owed under license agreements following the receivership of a home services business formerly operating under a national retailer’s brand.

The respondents argued the receiver had repudiated the license agreements by shutting down the system that generated service leads and announcing it would not continue operations, thereby relieving them of contractual obligations.

The court held that the receiver’s conduct constituted repudiation of the agreements, which the respondents accepted.

As a result, the receiver could not enforce contractual payment obligations.

Claims based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit were also rejected, particularly given the inequitable circumstances created by the receiver’s actions and the continued enforcement of stay provisions against the respondents.

A bankruptcy trustee brought a motion under s. 163(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking to compel former directors and an officer of the bankrupt entities to attend examinations under oath and produce documents concerning the bankrupts’ affairs.

The respondents argued that because the trustee had already commenced a civil action relating to a dividend transaction, the trustee could not rely on the statutory examination power absent exceptional circumstances and should instead obtain information through discovery in the action.

The court held that the trustee’s statutory examination powers are broad and are not limited to exceptional circumstances where litigation has commenced.

The court found the examinations were necessary for the proper administration of the bankrupt estate and not merely a step in the civil action.

The respondents were ordered to attend examinations and produce documents, with portions relevant to the civil action to count as discoveries to avoid duplication.

In CCAA proceedings arising from the liquidation of a multinational telecommunications company, bondholders claimed entitlement to post‑filing interest exceeding US$1.6 billion in addition to principal and pre‑filing interest of approximately US$4.092 billion.

The court considered whether the common law "interest stops rule" applies in CCAA proceedings, particularly in a liquidating CCAA context.

Applying insolvency principles of pari passu distribution and relying on Supreme Court guidance emphasizing the integrated nature of the CCAA and BIA regimes, the court held that post‑filing interest does not accrue against the insolvent estate.

The court rejected arguments that contractual entitlement to interest survives the filing or that distributions require a negotiated plan recognizing such interest.

Accordingly, crossover bondholders were limited to principal and pre‑petition interest claims.

In long‑running insolvency proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the court was asked to determine whether unsecured bondholders were entitled to claim post‑filing interest on crossover bonds after the debtor companies entered CCAA protection.

The court considered the common law “interest stops” rule, the pari passu principle governing distribution to unsecured creditors, and the relationship between the CCAA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that the interest stops rule applies in CCAA proceedings and prevents unsecured creditors from claiming post‑filing interest absent a negotiated plan providing for such payments.

Allowing interest to accrue for some creditors during the stay period would undermine the status quo and distort equality among creditors.

The court further held it had jurisdiction to determine the issue even without a proposed plan of arrangement.

Third party lenders sought declarations in CCAA proceedings that funds, brokered payday loans, and receivables advanced through the debtor company were their property and not assets of the debtor estate.

The court examined the written broker agreements and the parties’ actual practices, including commingling of funds, guaranteed returns to lenders, and capital protection arrangements that insulated lenders from loan losses.

The evidence showed the lenders received fixed 17.5% returns irrespective of customer loan performance and that all loan proceeds and repayments flowed through the debtor’s general accounts.

The court held that the parties’ conduct varied the broker agreements and created a debtor–creditor relationship rather than a trust or agency relationship.

The lenders’ motions for declarations of ownership were dismissed and the disputed receipts were held to belong beneficially to the debtor.

A corporation sought court approval of a statutory plan of arrangement under s. 182 of the Business Corporations Act involving the acquisition of its shares by another mining corporation through an exchange of securities.

The court applied the framework established in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, requiring satisfaction of statutory procedures, good faith, and that the arrangement be fair and reasonable.

The court found the statutory requirements met, the transaction negotiated at arm’s length and recommended by the board, and the arrangement supported by an overwhelming shareholder vote with no dissent.

The court also addressed the evidentiary role of fairness opinions in M&A transactions, holding that such opinions may support good faith and fairness even if not tendered as expert evidence.

Approval of the arrangement was granted.

The Applicants, operating a network of alternative financial services branches across Canada, sought initial protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a severe liquidity crisis and regulatory challenges.

The court found the Applicants to be insolvent and granted a stay of proceedings to provide breathing space for restructuring.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the matter in Ontario, as the Applicants' chief place of business is located there.

However, the court deferred the request for a DIP financing charge to allow other stakeholders time to respond.

Following the dismissal of its application for the enforcement of letters rogatory, the applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the application raised novel issues of law.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the applicant was a commercial entity pursuing its own private interests in foreign litigation, not a public interest litigant.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful respondent but reduced the quantum claimed from $32,647.71 to $18,189.46, noting that the respondent had already received a substantial costs award on an earlier, nearly identical application.

The applicant, an American pharmaceutical company, sought to enforce amended letters rogatory issued by a United States District Court to compel testimony and documentary evidence from the respondent, a federal Crown corporation, for use in foreign litigation.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that it enjoyed Crown immunity.

The court held that the presumption of Crown immunity under s. 17 of the federal Interpretation Act prevented the enforcement of letters rogatory against a Crown agent, as the provincial Evidence Act does not bind the federal Crown.

Furthermore, the court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the legal standard for enforcing letters rogatory, as the evidence sought was not necessary for trial and had already been obtained through an Access to Information Act request.

The application was dismissed.