Chenyang Li

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.

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.

These two appeals arise from a receivership order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The motion judge found both the debtor and its management, as well as United Group of Companies and its management, in civil contempt of the receivership and asset recovery orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the motion judge’s reasoning or exercise of discretion, and confirmed the costs awards and sentences imposed.

The bankrupt applied for an automatic discharge from his first-time bankruptcy, which was opposed by the Trustee and a major creditor.

The Trustee opposed the discharge due to outstanding surplus income payments and a prior unsuccessful consumer proposal.

The creditor opposed the discharge, alleging the bankrupt failed to disclose assets, specifically an exempt pension, and failed to account for a loss of assets compared to a family law statement from six years prior.

The court found no misconduct regarding the disclosure of the exempt pension or other assets.

However, the court found the bankrupt's claimed monthly expenses to be excessive.

The court granted a conditional discharge, requiring the bankrupt to pay the outstanding surplus income of $1,383, an additional $10,000 to the Trustee due to excessive expenses, and imposed a concurrent 3-month suspension.

Riot Platforms, Inc., the largest shareholder of Bitfarms Ltd., applied to the Capital Markets Tribunal for an order under s. 127(1) of the Securities Act to cease trade a shareholder rights plan adopted by Bitfarms.

The plan featured a 15% trigger, which was below the 20% threshold established in the take-over bid regime.

Riot did not allege a contravention of Ontario securities law but argued the plan was contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal clarified the standard for intervening without a contravention, holding that an applicant must demonstrate the conduct undermines clearly discernible animating principles of securities law in a real and substantial way, with a public dimension.

The Tribunal found that the 15% trigger undermined the predictability and certainty of the take-over bid regime.

As Bitfarms failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the 20% threshold, the Tribunal concluded it was in the public interest to cease trade the plan.

The appellant, a lawyer and former senior advisor to the Kenyan Prime Minister, appealed the dismissal of his defamation and breach of privacy action against Refinitiv Limited and Sitel Operating Corporation.

The action stemmed from his inclusion as a politically exposed person (PEP) in Refinitiv's World-Check Database, which allegedly led to a money transfer being held, and subsequent alleged defamatory statements by a Sitel customer service agent.

The motion judge had dismissed the action, finding the appellant was properly classified as a PEP, the database statements were true and publicly sourced, and any claims against Sitel were covered by a prior release or lacked evidence of defamation.

The motion judge also awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the appellant's unreasonable litigation conduct.

The Court of Appeal found no factual or legal errors in the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the claim was meritless and upholding the costs award.

The Body Shop Canada Limited (TBS Canada) brought a motion seeking three orders: authorization to continue its Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) proposal proceeding under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), approval of a Sale and Investor Solicitation Process (SISP), and a Discharge and Termination Order for the Proposal Trustee.

The court granted all requested relief, finding that the conversion to CCAA was appropriate given the company's insolvency, the ongoing UK sale process for its parent company, and the CCAA's flexibility to maximize stakeholder value and preserve the going concern.

The court also approved the SISP, the continuation of existing charges (administration, D&O, KERP), and the fees and releases for the Proposal Trustee and counsel.

A former employee of The Body Shop Canada Limited brought a motion in the company's bankruptcy proceedings seeking to be appointed as the Representative for all terminated Canadian employees, and to have her counsel appointed as Representative Counsel.

The moving party sought an order that included a mandatory opt-out mechanism and broad immunity from liability for the Representative and Representative Counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims of the terminated employees were relatively straightforward, the class was small and easily identifiable, and the proposed opt-out mechanism and broad immunity were inappropriate in the circumstances.

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

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 appellants, several local governments, appealed the dismissal of their application for declarations and injunctions against Canadian National Railway Company (CN) regarding the construction of an intermodal hub.

The appellants sought to compel CN to comply with over 65 provincial and municipal laws.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that the majority of the claims lacked a factual foundation and were premature, and that the three specific bylaws at issue impaired the core of the federal railway undertaking under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the construction and operation of the intermodal hub is a vital part of a federal railway undertaking and that the municipal bylaws requiring official plan amendments impaired this core federal power.

The appeal and the application for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The defendants, Refinitiv Limited and Sitel Operating Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for defamation and breach of privacy.

The plaintiff, a former senior advisor to the Kenyan prime minister, alleged wrongful inclusion in Refinitiv's World-Check Database as a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) and defamatory statements by Sitel's customer service.

The court found that the statements in the database were true in substance and fact, thus upholding the defence of justification.

It also determined there was no breach of privacy as the information was from public sources.

The claims against Sitel were dismissed as the alleged defamatory statements were covered by a prior release, lacked evidence of defamation, and were based on true information from the database.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action in its entirety and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants due to the plaintiff's unreasonable litigation conduct and voluminous, unnecessary evidence.

This endorsement addresses a request to seal supplemental affidavits filed in support of a settlement approval.

While the settlement was approved, the court largely denied the request to seal the affidavits, emphasizing the foundational principle of transparency and the open court principle.

The judge found no basis to seal information regarding the merits of the plaintiffs' case post-settlement approval or the terms of counsel's retainer, citing section 137 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The affidavits were ordered to remain sealed for 60 days, with a requirement for a formal application, served on all parties and the media, to extend the sealing order.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of small to medium-sized businesses, sought coverage under their business interruption insurance policies for losses sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related civil authority orders.

The court held a common issues trial to determine whether the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or government lockdown orders could cause 'physical loss or damage to property' within the meaning of the policies.

The court concluded that the virus does not physically alter or damage inanimate surfaces, and that the loss of use of the premises due to government orders does not constitute physical loss or damage.

Consequently, the court answered the certified common issues in the negative, finding no coverage under the business interruption provisions.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following the dismissal of motions by UD Trading Group and Rutmet for intervention and consolidation, and a cross-motion by TransAsia Private Capital Ltd. (TAP) for vexatious litigation.

The court had previously ordered a stay of proceedings on its own initiative.

The UD Group sought costs from TAP, while TAP primarily argued for each party to bear their own costs, or alternatively, sought partial indemnity costs in the cause.

The court rejected the relevance of a subsequent Singapore judgment to the costs determination and ultimately ordered that all participating parties bear their own costs of the dismissed motions and cross-motion.

A carriage motion was brought to determine which of two competing proposed class actions regarding allegedly misleading 'recyclable' claims on Keurig coffee pods should proceed in Ontario.

The court evaluated the competing proposals under section 13.1(4) of the Class Proceedings Act, focusing on efficiency, productivity, and proportionality.

The court awarded carriage to the Buis action, finding its narrower class definition and reliance on a damages model already utilized in a U.S. settlement offered a more efficient path to resolution.

The competing Gordon action was stayed.

The applicants sought coverage under a trade credit insurance policy issued by Export Development Canada (EDC).

EDC denied coverage due to underlying disputes regarding the receivables owed by the UD Group to Rutmet.

Rutmet and the UD Group brought motions to intervene in the application and consolidate it with their own actions.

The applicants brought a cross-motion to declare Rutmet and the UD Group vexatious litigants.

The court, on its own initiative, stayed the application pending the determination of the substantive disputes in ongoing foreign proceedings in Singapore and Dubai, finding that those jurisdictions had already been determined to be the appropriate forums.

Consequently, the motions to intervene and consolidate, as well as the cross-motion, were dismissed.

The Proposal Trustee brought a motion to compel the Proposal Sponsor to fund the Trustee's continuing work to resolve outstanding proofs of claim, specifically the Athanasoulis Claim, via a two-phase arbitration.

The Sponsor objected to funding phase 2 of the arbitration, arguing it was an improper delegation of the Trustee's duties under s. 135 of the BIA.

The court agreed with the Sponsor, finding that while phase 1 (fact-finding) was acceptable, phase 2 (final adjudication of damages) improperly delegated the Trustee's statutory responsibility to determine and value the claim.

The Sponsor was not ordered to fund phase 2 of the arbitration but remains obligated to fund the Trustee's reasonable expenses to determine the claim through an alternative process.

The respondent requested a correction to a costs endorsement, noting the judge had mistakenly written the fee total instead of the all-inclusive total of fees, taxes, and disbursements.

The applicants objected, arguing the endorsement was clear and the issue should be raised on cross-appeal since an appeal had already been commenced.

The court corrected the transposition error, amending the costs award to the intended all-inclusive amount of $2,288,314.57, noting the Court of Appeal would prefer the corrected outcome over a cross-appeal about a typo.

The plaintiff sought a case conference to establish a timetable for a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding against Keurig Canada Inc. regarding alleged misrepresentations about the recyclability of K-Cups.

The court noted the existence of three other overlapping proposed class proceedings in British Columbia, Federal Court, and Toronto.

The court declined to fix a date for the certification motion at this stage, instead ordering that a carriage motion be brought within 60 days to determine which action should proceed.