Brittni Tee

In an ongoing insolvency proceeding, a creditor whose $25 million profit share claim was valued at zero by the proposal trustee brought a motion seeking production of pre-report communications between the trustee and the experts hired by the trustee to appraise the claim.

The moving party argued that the communications were relevant to assess whether the trustee improperly influenced the experts or if unstated communications influenced the trustee's valuation.

The court distinguished the request from a demand for the trustee's working file under s. 26 of the BIA, applying civil procedure principles of relevance to order production of the requested communications, subject to redactions for strategy or tactics.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of a unanimous shareholders agreement for a family-owned steel distribution business.

The applicant argued the agreement required the board of directors to consist of the registered holders of voting shares, while the respondent argued the board was to be elected by a resolution of those shareholders.

Applying the principles of contractual interpretation, the court found the ordinary and grammatical meaning of the provision, read in context with the surrounding circumstances, supported the respondent's interpretation.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a reassessment disallowing the deduction of $26,510,522 in non-capital losses for its 2014 taxation year.

The losses arose from a payment made by a subsidiary to a related corporation to assume lease obligations for discontinued theatres prior to the appellant acquiring the subsidiary.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the payment was a deductible current expense incurred to terminate unprofitable business operations, not a capital outlay or negative proceeds of disposition.

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 moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

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.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action for delay under Rule 48.14(7)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

They argued the Associate Justice erred by failing to consider contextual factors and made palpable and overriding errors regarding their lack of steps taken and the absence of prejudice to the respondents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle or palpable and overriding errors of fact, noting the appellants failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay or demonstrate that the respondents would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The moving party sought to consolidate two actions commenced under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations and to extend the 24-month stay period.

The actions involved the same generic drug submission but distinct patents and invalidity allegations.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding that consolidation would prejudice the responding party by delaying the original trial and extending the time before market entry, or otherwise forcing an at-risk launch.

As the consolidation was refused, the request for an extension of the stay period was not considered.

Multiple appellants appealed the City of Ottawa's enactment of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment permitting a nine-storey, 62-unit residential apartment building.

The appellants raised concerns regarding shadow impacts, traffic safety, tree preservation, and conformity with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's and City's experts, finding that the proposed development would not create undue adverse impacts on traffic or forestry.

The Tribunal concluded that the amendment has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were dismissed.