Brian Kolenda

In a CCAA proceeding, the applicant Fund brought a motion to amend the Amended Discharge and Dissolution Order to facilitate a final distribution to shareholders.

The Fund's transfer agent brought a cross-motion seeking a third-party release from liability related to the distribution, arguing the shareholder data might be unreliable.

The court granted the Fund's motion and dismissed the cross-motion, finding that the transfer agent had not made a meaningful contribution to the restructuring and had instead delayed the process, failing to meet the established test for third-party releases.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment that dismissed its copyright claim under s. 13(3) of the Copyright Act over competing software secretly developed by a former employee.

The trial judge found the software was not created "in the course of employment" because the employee's actual responsibilities were limited to developing the employer's existing software, he was not directed to create new products, and the employer did not expend resources on the competing software's development.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, holding that the proper test under s. 13(3) focuses on the employee's actual assigned responsibilities, not the class of work the employer could have directed, and found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

In a landmark CCAA proceeding involving Hudson's Bay Company, the court declined to approve the assignment of 25 major retail department store leases across Canada to a new tenant, Ruby Liu Commercial Investment Corp., despite the transaction representing the highest bid and generating approximately $50 million in net proceeds for creditors.

The court found that the proposed assignee failed to meet the reasonableness standard under section 11.3(3) of the CCAA, particularly regarding its ability to perform the substantial and ongoing obligations under the leases.

The decision emphasizes that section 11.3 is an extraordinary power that must be exercised sparingly, and that the court must balance the interests of all stakeholders, including the contractual counterparties (landlords) who would be compelled into a long-term relationship with an untested and undercapitalized purchaser.

The court also rejected the applicants' arguments that certain lease provisions constituted ipso facto clauses violating the anti-deprivation rule and section 34 of the CCAA.

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.

In this CCAA proceeding, the court granted multiple orders sought by Hudson's Bay Company and related entities, including approval of lease assignment agreements with YM Inc. and Ivanhoe Cambridge, sealing of confidential bid information, extension of the stay of proceedings to October 31, 2025, and approval of the Monitor's reports and activities.

The court rejected requests for adjournment and conditional distributions, finding the lease monetization process was fair and transparent, and that the proposed transactions represent a positive development for stakeholders.

The Trustee, KSV Restructuring Inc., sought substantive consolidation of the estates of ProEx Logistics Inc., Guru Logistics Inc., and 1542300 Ontario Inc., as well as authorization to accept claims by Paul Randhawa and to approve the Trustee’s reports.

The court granted substantive consolidation and approved the Trustee’s reports, but declined to authorize the Trustee’s acceptance of Paul’s claims, holding that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provides a comprehensive code for the allowance and disallowance of claims, and that equity owners such as Rana Randhawa have no standing to challenge the Trustee’s decision to accept a claim.

The decision also addresses the effect of outstanding costs awards on standing and the finality of proceedings.

This costs endorsement followed a decision on an appeal and cross-appeal.

Given the divided success of the parties on both the appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The parties entered into a contract in 1999 for the provision of market pricing data.

The appellant, a custodial bank, redistributed the data to its numerous affiliates without authorization.

The respondent discovered the breach in 2016 and sued.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the contract and awarded damages based on a rateable approach, but also awarded damages for sharing data with a specific affiliate.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding, concluding the contract only authorized the appellant itself to access the data.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's decision to change his unentered judgment and rejected the appellant's limitations defence.

On damages, the Court struck the award relating to the specific affiliate as double compensation but otherwise upheld the damages assessment, including an adverse inference drawn against the appellant for spoliation of evidence.

The respondents entered into a settlement agreement with Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding allegations of unregistered trading, illegal distribution, and making misleading statements in connection with the promotion and sale of cryptocurrency tokens (Axia Coin).

The respondents admitted to breaching multiple provisions of the Securities Act and agreed to pay administrative penalties, disgorgement, and costs, as well as to permanent market bans.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement agreement, finding it to be in the public interest and within a range of reasonable outcomes.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. for the production of a Crown Disclosure Brief from the defendants Vasos Georgiou and John Aquino.

The original motion was adjourned sine die after the Attorney General provided key undertakings.

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs ($20,000) but not on entitlement.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57, decided that no costs should be awarded to any party.

The decision considered the novelty of the issues, the timing of the Attorney General's undertakings, and the fact that the outcome was not primarily based on the arguments presented by the defendants seeking costs.

In a securities class action, the plaintiff sought multiple orders in advance of a settlement approval motion.

The plaintiff requested leave to proceed against Tetra Tech, Inc. under the Securities Act, leave to discontinue common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims against Tetra Tech, and certification of the action as a class proceeding against Tetra Tech for settlement purposes.

Additionally, the plaintiff sought approval to discontinue the action against the Underwriter Defendants based on a Standstill and Tolling Agreement.

The court granted all requested orders, finding that the criteria for leave and certification were met and that the discontinuance against the Underwriter Defendants would not prejudice the class.

The plaintiff in a civil rescission action sought an order compelling the defendants to produce the Crown disclosure brief they received in related criminal proceedings concerning the same alleged fraud in a hospital procurement process.

The Attorney General opposed immediate production, arguing it could taint witnesses before they testified in the criminal trial.

The court balanced the interests under the Wagg framework and adjourned the motion sine die, accepting the Attorney General's undertaking to conduct a Wagg review and produce the documents within eight weeks after a verdict in the criminal proceedings.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding that he engaged in fraudulent conduct under s. 126.1 of the Securities Act by approving unauthorized transfers of cash between investment funds to pay distributions and dealer fees.

The appellant argued the Panel erred in its factual findings, its rejection of his due diligence and reliance on legal advice defences, and its imposition of sanctions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Panel's factual findings or legal analysis, but reduced the disgorgement order from $51,361 to $45,298 based on a concession by the respondent regarding the calculation methodology.

The plaintiff, Bluemoon Capital Ltd., sought court approval under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, to discontinue a proposed class action against the defendants on a with-prejudice and without-costs basis.

The action, alleging secondary and primary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act, was commenced to preserve claims while a Norwich application was pending.

Following the denial of the Norwich application by Justice Pattillo and its confirmation on appeal, the plaintiff determined the action was no longer viable.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding it was for a proper purpose and would not prejudice putative class members who were unaware of the action.

The plaintiff's request to suspend the discontinuance for 60 days to allow for potential class member action was denied, as no purpose would be served by giving notice or suspending the discontinuance.

This is a costs endorsement following an application concerning the allocation of sale proceeds from two properties.

The court found York University largely successful in the underlying application, as nearly all remaining sale proceeds were paid to York's benefit after mortgage discharge.

The applicant's allegations were unfounded, and her conduct (attempting to list property in contravention of an order) prolonged the litigation.

The court awarded York University costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $54,705.38, and also allowed $16,813.56 for legal fees incurred by York with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, payable from the sale proceeds.

The court declined substantial indemnity costs because some relief sought by York would have been necessary anyway.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in fraudulent conduct by diverting $234,864.04 from a solar energy fund contrary to its offering memorandum, the Capital Markets Tribunal held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement of the diverted funds, imposed administrative penalties totaling $476,000, and ordered the respondents to pay $112,500 in costs.

The Tribunal also imposed permanent market bans on the respondents, subject to limited carve-outs for personal trading and acting as directors of specific private family companies.

The appellant, Bluemoon Capital Ltd., appealed the dismissal of its application for a Norwich order and the quashing of a Rule 39.03 notice of examination.

The appellant, a shareholder of Ceridian HCM Holding Inc., sought pre-action discovery regarding the alleged undervaluation of LifeWorks Corporation Ltd. shares during Ceridian's 2018 distribution and subsequent sale to Morneau Shepell.

The application judge dismissed the Norwich order, finding it unnecessary and not in the interests of justice, and quashed the notice of examination as moot.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, affirming the application judge's discretionary decision that the appellant had sufficient information to commence its class action and that the Norwich order was not sought for a legitimate purpose.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

During a trial of an issue on damages arising from an application, the applicant objected to numerous pieces of viva voce evidence introduced by the respondents.

The court had previously directed that the damages trial proceed on the closed record as it existed when the application was initially argued.

The court applied a bright-line test, ruling that any evidence not actually found in the underlying application record was inadmissible to prevent trial by ambush.

The court sustained the majority of the applicant's objections, rejecting the respondents' arguments that the new evidence was merely a permissible amplification of the existing record or a necessary response to the applicant's expert.

The applicant sought an equitable remedy to allocate the payment of a mortgage and a costs award from the proceeds of sale of a property (Osprey) that had been fraudulently conveyed to her, rather than from an adjacent lot.

The respondent university, a judgment creditor of the applicant's former partner, opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that previous court orders had nullified the applicant's interest in Osprey and granted the university enforcement rights against it.

The court also held that the mortgagee was entitled to pursue its remedy against the adjacent lot, and that the equitable doctrine of marshalling would have compelled this result to protect the university's unsecured interest.

The appellants, a group of subcontractors and a bank, appealed an application judge's decision that rescission of surety bonds might be possible even if it affects innocent third parties.

The bonds were issued by Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. for a large construction project, but Zurich later discovered alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and collusion that induced it to issue the bonds.

The appellants sought a declaration that rescission was unavailable as a matter of law due to the involvement of innocent third parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that prejudice to third parties is not an absolute bar to rescission, especially in cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, and that such a determination requires a full factual record at trial.