Brittni Tee

An appeal from a Superior Court decision regarding the provability of a former employee's profit-sharing claim in the bankruptcy of a real estate development company.

The trustee disallowed the claim on the grounds that it was an equity claim and too contingent and remote.

The appeal judge allowed the appeal, finding the profit-sharing claim was a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract, not an equity claim, and was therefore provable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision and confirming that the profit-sharing claim is a provable claim that takes priority over the limited partners' equity claims.

The Applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought a Funding Contribution and Turn-Over Order to compel various financiers to contribute to a $40 million wind-down cost, an extension of the stay period, and approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP).

The court declined the Funding Order and KERP, finding that CCAA section 11.01(b) prohibits compelling new money advances from stakeholders, and that securitization parties are differently situated with assets excluded from the debtor's property.

The court did grant a shorter extension of the stay of proceedings.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants sought a Funding Order to compel Securitization Parties and other secured lenders to fund a $40 million wind-down of the remaining entities.

The court dismissed the motion for the Funding Order, finding that section 11.01(b) of the CCAA expressly prohibits orders requiring the further advance of money or credit.

Consequently, the court also declined to approve a Key Employee Retention Plan, as it was dependent on the unavailable funding.

The court did, however, grant a temporary sealing order for the KERP details and extended the stay of proceedings to November 29, 2024.

NorthStar Earth & Space Inc. sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against Spire Global Subsidiary, Inc. to prevent the deorbiting or decommissioning of three failed satellites and the termination of image downloading services.

NorthStar argued these interim measures were necessary pending an arbitration concerning Spire's alleged breaches of a Constellation Services Framework Agreement.

The court granted the injunction, finding a reasonable possibility that NorthStar would succeed on the merits, particularly regarding Spire's anticipatory breach of its obligation to replace satellites and its obligation to continue operating the failed satellites.

The court also found NorthStar would suffer irreparable harm due to a limitation of liability clause and the irreversible nature of deorbiting, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

NorthStar was ordered to pay a monthly fee for the continued operation of the satellites, and Spire was ordered to pay NorthStar partial indemnity costs.

The moving party, Unity Health, sought summary judgment to dismiss four actions brought by subcontractor plaintiffs, arguing that the plaintiffs' settlement with the surety (Zurich) constituted an inconsistent election that precluded their alternative claims against Unity Health.

Unity Health also sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims and, alternatively, to stay two of the actions for failure to immediately disclose the settlement.

The court dismissed the motions, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the doctrine of inconsistent election and the unjust enrichment claims.

The court also held that the settlement was disclosed in a timely manner once it was finalized, so a stay was not warranted.

The defendants moved to amend their statement of defence to plead issue estoppel and abuse of process based on a prior US arbitration award, and to dismiss the plaintiff's action on those grounds.

The plaintiff cross-moved to add the defendants' parent company as a party.

The court granted the defendants' motion to amend and dismissed the plaintiff's breach of contract and negligence claims, finding they were barred by issue estoppel as the arbitrator had already decided the core factual issues against the plaintiff.

However, the court refused to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding those issues were not determined in the arbitration.

The plaintiff's motion to add the parent company was dismissed as premature and legally untenable.

The appellant, a former employee, appealed a lower court decision regarding a share purchase agreement with his former employer.

The dispute centered on interest payments, alleged breach of good faith, and repudiation of the agreement.

The application judge found no breach of good faith or repudiation, ordered payment of overdue interest, T5 form corrections, and post-judgment interest, but denied pre-judgment interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings on good faith and repudiation, affirming that the employer's failure to pay some interest did not constitute repudiation as principal payments continued.

However, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's decision on pre-judgment interest, ordering it at the rate set out in the agreement.

The defendants, Unity Health, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to strike paragraphs of the plaintiff Noram's Amended Statement of Claim, arguing that new claims for conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty were statute-barred by the Limitations Act.

Noram had added these claims as alternative grounds for relief to an existing unjust enrichment claim.

The court dismissed Unity Health's motion, finding it was not "plain and obvious" that the Limitations Act applied to amendments made as of right to an existing proceeding, particularly given the unsettled nature of the law on this specific point of statutory interpretation.

The court preserved Unity Health's right to raise the limitations defence at a later stage.

The appellants, Limited Partners of a debtor in a bankruptcy proposal, appealed an order for directions regarding the process for an appeal of a proof of claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that the motion judge had not made any final orders regarding the appellants' standing in the anticipated claim appeal, but rather had made directions "subject to the discretion of the judge hearing the appeal." The court held that the possibility of influence or an incorrect underlying conclusion on discretionary standing was not a basis for appeal.