37 total
Interim orders granted for corporate arrangement involving a non-OBCA SPAC pending continuance.
The applicants jointly sought interim orders under s. 182(5) of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) in connection with a proposed plan of arrangement involving a quantum computing company (an OBCA corporation) and a special purpose acquisition company currently incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands.
A threshold issue arose as to whether a non-OBCA entity could avail itself of s. 182 of the OBCA.
The court found that the arrangement provision is to be interpreted broadly and flexibly, and that the timing of the SPAC's continuance to the OBCA was an immaterial quirk given that it would be an OBCA corporation before the final order was sought.
The court was satisfied that reasonable grounds existed to regard the proposed transaction as an arrangement and granted the interim orders authorizing the calling and holding of shareholder meetings.
The court approved unprecedented class counsel fees totaling over $900 million in the tobacco insolvency proceedings.
This decision concerns three motions to approve class counsel fees in the context of insolvency proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act involving three major tobacco companies.
The court approved the Quebec Class Action Plaintiffs' counsel fee request of approximately $901 million (representing 22% of the $4.119 billion allocated to the Quebec class members), the Knight Class Counsel fee request of $5 million plus disbursements, and the Tobacco Producers' counsel fee request of $3.75 million.
The court found that the fees were fair and reasonable given the exceptional risks assumed, the unprecedented outcome achieved, and the unique circumstances of the case.
A $50 million reserve was established from the Quebec counsel fees to protect against any pro-rata reduction in class member compensation due to actual take-up rates or other factors.
The court sanctioned the CCAA plans of major tobacco companies to effect a global settlement.
This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.
The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.
The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.
Court approved CCAA plan amendments and dismissed a social stakeholder's objection for lack of standing.
This endorsement addresses motions by the court-appointed Monitors in the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The Monitors sought approval for amendments to the CCAA Plans to resolve the allocation of a $750 million working capital holdback among the Tobacco Companies.
The only opposition came from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which objected as a social stakeholder but was found to lack standing.
The court granted the motions, finding the amendments did not adversely affect any creditors and were appropriate in the circumstances.
The court granted an unopposed motion to approve a notice protocol order for class action plaintiffs.
This endorsement concerns ongoing insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) involving JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The specific motion, brought by the applicants, sought a Quebec Class Action Plaintiffs Notice Protocol Order.
The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with the requested order signed.
The court granted an unopposed motion for a Sanction Protocol Order in ongoing CCAA proceedings.
This endorsement concerns a joint motion brought by the court-appointed Monitors for JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. in their ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The Monitors sought a Sanction Protocol Order to establish the date for the Sanction Hearing, ratify the litigation timetable, approve the dissemination of the Agenda and Sanction Hearing procedure, approve the Omnibus Sanction Hearing Notice, and set the deadline for Sanction Hearing Objection Notices.
The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with three orders signed.
Motions for further discovery and to amend pleadings to add sexual misconduct cover-up allegations dismissed on eve of trial.
The plaintiff in a complex family trust dispute brought motions on the eve of trial for further documentary production, further examinations for discovery, and leave to amend her Statement of Claim.
The motions sought to introduce new allegations that the defendants covered up and settled claims of sexual misconduct against the family patriarch, Frank Stronach.
The court dismissed both motions, finding no evidence that the requested documents existed, that the new allegations were irrelevant to the pleaded claims of corporate mismanagement, and that amending the pleadings three weeks before a scheduled seven-week trial would cause non-compensable prejudice and delay.
The court granted unopposed motions extending the CCAA stay period and authorizing ancillary operational relief for the applicant tobacco companies.
This endorsement concerns three tobacco companies (JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) operating under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
Each applicant sought an extension of their stay period until September 30, 2024, to continue formulating plans of arrangement.
Imperial also requested authorization to terminate a retirement plan and post security for a vaping product license.
RBH sought a procedural amendment for employee grievances.
The court, finding no opposition and satisfied with the applicants' good faith, diligence, and sufficient resources, granted all requested relief, noting significant progress in ongoing mediation.
The court granted final approval for a corporate plan of arrangement, finding it fair, reasonable, and overwhelmingly supported by shareholders.
Q4 Inc. brought an application under section 182 of the Business Corporations Act for final court approval of a plan of arrangement involving SEP Forge BidCo Inc. The arrangement, which involved the acquisition of Q4 shares for cash, had previously received an interim order and was approved by the requisite majorities of shareholders.
The court granted the final approval order, finding that all statutory procedures and court-ordered requirements were met, the application was put forward in good faith, and the arrangement was fair and reasonable.
The decision noted the overwhelming shareholder support and the absence of exercised dissent rights, despite public opposition from a competitor shareholder.
The court granted an unopposed stay extension in complex CCAA proceedings and directed the Monitors and Mediator to collaboratively develop plans of arrangement.
This endorsement concerns the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted an unopposed motion to extend the stay period until March 29, 2024.
Recognizing the complexity and the four-and-a-half-year duration of negotiations, the court directed the three court-appointed Monitors, in conjunction with the court-appointed Mediator, to collaborate and develop comprehensive Plans of Compromise or Arrangement.
The objective is to finalize plans that are fair and reasonable to all applicants and creditors, moving from observable activity to meaningful action.
The court declined to stay a counterclaim over delayed disclosure of a non-party agreement but granted third-party discovery.
The court addressed two pretrial motions: one seeking to stay a counterclaim based on abuse of process due to delayed disclosure of a cooperation agreement, and another seeking leave for third-party discovery.
The motion to stay was dismissed, as the immediate disclosure rule for settlement agreements was found not to apply to agreements with non-parties.
The motion for third-party discovery was granted, with the court finding the non-party's evidence critical and that the cooperation agreement constituted a constructive refusal to provide information, making a pretrial examination necessary for trial fairness.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion does not apply to Database Defendants for data breaches by independent third-party hackers.
This is an appeal from a motion judge's refusal to certify a claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Trans Union of Canada, Inc. in a class action.
The appellant alleged that Trans Union, a "Database Defendant" enabled third-party hackers to access private information due to inadequate security.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, holding that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, as recognized in Jones v. Tsige, does not extend to "Database Defendants" for the actions of independent third-party hackers, as there is no basis for vicarious liability in such circumstances.
The court also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, treating the refusal to certify as a final order effectively dismissing the claim.
Plan of arrangement for corporate acquisition approved as fair and reasonable.
The applicant sought final court approval for a plan of arrangement under section 182 of the Business Corporations Act, whereby the respondent would acquire all issued and outstanding common shares of the applicant.
The court found that the statutory procedures were met, the application was put forward in good faith, and the arrangement was fair and reasonable, noting overwhelming shareholder approval and the presence of fairness opinions.
The final order approving the arrangement was granted.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 4, 2021.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
No costs were ordered as no costs outlines were provided.
The court dismissed motions to compel the plaintiffs to undergo medical examinations for capacity, finding insufficient evidence and prematurity.
The defendants in two related actions sought orders to compel the plaintiffs, Andrew Stronach and Selena Stronach, to undergo medical examinations to assess their mental capacities for the purpose of determining if litigation guardians were required.
The court dismissed the motion against Selena Stronach, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.
The motion against Andrew Stronach was dismissed without prejudice, as the court found it premature and suggested other discovery avenues should be pursued first.
The court also declined to order production of video recordings of Andrew's examination for discovery.
Appeal dismissed; portions of statements of defence struck for improperly pleading communications protected by settlement privilege.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking out portions of their statements of defence.
The impugned pleadings referred to documents and communications from a judicial mediation, which the motion judge found were prima facie protected by settlement privilege.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court affirmed that the respondents had not waived settlement privilege and that the justice of the case did not require an exception to allow the appellants to plead the privileged information to defend against breach of fiduciary duty claims.
Leave for securities class action denied; plaintiff failed to show reasonable possibility of success regarding tax disclosures.
The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and certification of a class proceeding against Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. and its officers.
The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to disclose a material tax liability arising from a CRA audit regarding transfer pricing.
The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial because the plaintiff's expert evidence was inadmissible or unreliable, and the defendants' disclosures accurately reflected management's reasonable assessment of the tax risk.
The court also declined to certify the common law and prospectus misrepresentation claims, finding a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure and the claims did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Class action certified against TransUnion for negligence and certain privacy statute breaches following a data breach.
The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against TransUnion arising from a data breach where hackers accessed the credit profiles of 37,444 individuals.
The plaintiff alleged intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, and breach of provincial privacy statutes.
The court certified the negligence and certain provincial privacy statute claims, finding they disclosed a cause of action and met the certification criteria.
However, the court refused to certify the intrusion upon seclusion claim, as binding authority established it does not apply to database defendants for hacker attacks, and struck claims under the privacy statutes of Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motions for leave to appeal granted with agreed costs of $20,000.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal from the decision of Cavanagh J. dated August 26, 2021.
The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs in the agreed amount of $20,000 payable by the responding parties.
A case management teleconference was scheduled to settle a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and to schedule an expedited appeal date.
Motions to strike pleadings granted as they improperly referenced communications and documents protected by settlement privilege.
The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, brought motions to strike out portions of the defendants' Fresh as Amended Statements of Defence under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiffs argued that the impugned pleadings improperly referenced documents and communications that were subject to settlement privilege arising from a confidential judicial mediation.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had waived privilege or that an exception applied based on the justice of the case.
The court found that the mediation was subject to settlement privilege, the plaintiffs had not waived the privilege, and no exception applied.
The court granted the motions to strike the pleadings relating to the mediation.
The court also struck out portions of one defendant's pleading as scandalous, but dismissed a motion to require another defendant to reinstate a withdrawn admission.