Carla Breadon

The applicant, Tacora Resources Inc., sought approval for an Amended and Restated Debtor in Possession (DIP) financing agreement with Cargill and an extension of the CCAA Stay Period.

The Ad Hoc Group of Noteholders (AHG) opposed the Cargill DIP, proposing an alternative and seeking renegotiation of terms, including an exit fee, legal costs, and the "Offtake Condition" related to a pre-existing commercial agreement with Cargill.

The court approved the Cargill DIP and extended the stay, finding the Cargill agreement offered greater short-term stability and liquidity, was recommended by the Monitor, and did not materially prejudice other stakeholders beyond what already existed due to the pre-CCAA Offtake Agreement.

The court held that the DIP approval motion was not the appropriate forum to address the enforceability or commercial reasonableness of the Offtake Agreement itself.

The applicant sought a Norwich order for pre-action discovery against the respondents to obtain documents relating to a corporate distribution and subsequent acquisition.

The respondents brought motions to quash a notice of examination and for a sealing order over confidential tax information.

The court dismissed the application for a Norwich order, finding the applicant had sufficient information to commence its claims and lacked a legitimate objective.

The court granted the sealing order to protect highly sensitive tax information and quashed the notice of examination as an abuse of process.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal concerning the enforcement of a Letter of Request (LoR) from a U.S. court.

The LoR sought confidential financial and valuation documents from Matvil Corp., a non-party, to assist Actava TV, Inc.'s damages expert in a U.S. action using a "yardstick" method.

The Court found that the application judge erred in her relevance and public policy analyses, and failed to adequately consider Canadian sovereignty.

The requested information was deemed overly broad, speculative, and not directly relevant to the material issues in the U.S. action, and its disclosure would be contrary to Canadian public policy given the sensitive nature of the data and the inadequacy of protective orders.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.