Daniel T. Richer

The Administrative Agent for the Syndicate Lenders moved for an order tolling limitation periods relating to claims against the debtor entities, additional stay parties, and related individuals and trusts that may expire during the stay period or within 60 days following its termination.

The motion was unopposed and supported by the Monitor and the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The court granted the tolling order, finding jurisdiction under section 11 of the CCAA and that the relief advanced the policy and remedial objectives of the Act.

The court acknowledged the respondents' reservation of rights to seek variation or termination of the tolling provisions in the future.

In an appeal concerning adverse possession of municipal parkland, the appellants sought possessory title to a fenced portion of backyard land registered to the municipality.

The majority held that recognizing a common law immunity for municipal parkland would conflict with Ontario’s statutory scheme under the Real Property Limitations Act and related legislation, which preserves matured possessory claims unless a statutory exception applies.

Because the statutory test for adverse possession was satisfied and no applicable statutory immunity barred the claim, the municipality’s title had been extinguished.

The appeal was allowed and the appellants were entitled to fee simple title to the disputed land.

This endorsement grants several orders sought by the Applicants in ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, including approval of the Monitor’s reports and activities, amendment of reporting obligations, addition of Block 6 Holding Inc. as an Applicant, approval of a property sale and related distributions, and the appointment of a mediator to address cost allocation issues among financiers.

The court finds all relief appropriate and supported by the record.

This decision concerns motions brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and related applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for interim relief in their restructuring proceedings.

The court addresses requests for approval of interim distributions, payment of direct costs, application of deferred payments for working capital, and approval of certain activities of the Monitor.

The court grants the requested relief, finding it necessary to maintain liquidity and continue the wind-down process, and holds that the proposed mechanisms are equitable and consistent with the CCAA’s remedial objectives.

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.

This endorsement concerns a motion brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and its affiliates (the Applicants) under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a going concern transaction for Pride Group Logistics (PGL), a distinct business line.

The proposed purchasers included principals of the Applicants, leading the Court-appointed Monitor to undertake negotiations and carriage of the motion.

The Monitor, supported by the Applicants, their directors, employees, and some financiers (Daimler, Mitsubishi, Finloc, National Bank), recommended approval, arguing it offered a higher recovery than liquidation, preserved approximately 500 jobs, and avoided significant wind-down costs for the broader Pride Entities.

The transaction was opposed by certain secured lenders, including The Bank of Nova Scotia, The Lending Syndicate, TD Equipment Finance Canada, and RBC entities, who preferred a wind-down.

The court applied the factors under CCAA s. 36(3) and the Soundair Principles, finding the sale process reasonable, fair, and transparent.

The court concluded that the transaction was the only viable going concern option, superior to a wind-down, and consistent with the CCAA's purpose of avoiding social and economic losses from liquidation.

The PGL Going Concern Transaction was approved.

In the context of ongoing CCAA proceedings, the applicants and various equipment financiers reached an impasse regarding the wind-down plan and a proposed going-concern sale of the logistics business.

The applicants sought a monetization order, an increase in the administration charge, and lien regularization, which were unopposed and granted by the court to maintain operations.

Due to significant disputes over the sale and liquidation of assets, the court adjourned the contested motions, including several lift-stay motions brought by creditors, and ordered the parties to attend mandatory mediation before a former Commercial List judge.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants sought three orders: approval of a factoring portfolio purchase agreement, approval for distribution of proceeds from a property sale, and permission for a creditor to sell certain vehicles.

The court approved the distribution of Chehalis property proceeds to Roynat.

For the Regions vehicles, the court granted the order allowing Regions to take possession, setting a 30-day retrieval period and approving storage costs of $35/day.

The motion for approval of the JD Factors Purchase Agreement was adjourned to a later date, as Mitsubishi HC Capital Canada Inc. objected, claiming ownership of the receivables and requiring more time to prepare its position.

In a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding, the applicants sought court approval for the sale of a real property, the Monitor's reports, a revised governance protocol, and a sale and investor solicitation process (SISP) for their logistics business.

The court approved the property sale, finding it met the Soundair Principles despite not being a court-supervised process.

The Monitor's reports and activities were also approved.

The proposed SISP was approved with a minor amendment requiring the Monitor to consult directly affected secured creditors.

The Revised Governance Protocol, which included default commission rates for vehicle sales and collections, was approved as an interim measure, balancing the need for cost recovery with creditor concerns, noting that financiers could negotiate alternative rates or withhold consent to sales.

This endorsement concerns a motion brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and other applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The applicants sought court approval for three main items: a pre-filing agreement of purchase and sale for the Bolingbrook Property, approval of the Monitor's First and Second Reports, and an amendment to the Amended and Restated Initial Order to allow the sale of redundant, surplus, or non-material property up to certain financial thresholds without further court approval.

The court, applying the Soundair Principles, found the pre-filing sale to be in the best interests of stakeholders, noting the extensive negotiations and lack of opposition.

All requested relief was granted, with the court emphasizing the practical benefits of the proposed amendments for maximizing recovery and minimizing professional fees.

The appellants sought title to a portion of municipal parkland that their predecessors had fenced off and exclusively used since at least 1971.

The application judge dismissed the claim, finding that municipal parkland is immune to adverse possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while there is no absolute common law immunity, municipal parkland is presumptively unavailable for adverse possession under the 'public benefit' test unless the municipality has waived its rights or acquiesced to the possession.

The dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, arguing that the Real Property Limitations Act provides a complete code that does not exempt municipal parkland.

Voyager Digital Ltd. applied under Part IV of the CCAA for an Initial Recognition Order of its Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States.

The central issue was whether the US proceeding should be recognized as a 'foreign main proceeding' or a 'foreign non-main proceeding', which depended on determining the company's Centre of Main Interests (COMI).

Despite being incorporated in British Columbia and listed on the TSX, the court found that the company's COMI was in the US, where its operations, management, and principal assets were located.

The court recognized the US proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and granted the requested stay.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $144,054.57 following a successful application.

The applicants argued for no costs, asserting the matter was a case of first impression, or alternatively $30,000.

The court held that costs should follow the cause because the parties were advancing private financial interests rather than a public interest.

Applying the Boucher principles, the court found the respondent's time spent was excessive compared to the applicants' and reduced the requested fees by approximately 40 percent, fixing costs at $75,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The applicants sought a declaration that an option in a 1997 mining rights option agreement was void under the 21-year perpetuity period in s. 13(3) of the Perpetuities Act.

The court held, in a case of first impression, that the option concerned an incorporeal interest akin to a profit à prendre and therefore fell within s. 14, which provides a 40-year vesting period for easements, profits à prendre, and similar interests.

Applying a textual, contextual, purposive, and original-meaning interpretation, the court concluded that s. 13(3) addressed options relating to corporeal hereditaments, while s. 14 addressed incorporeal hereditament interests.

Because the option was created in 1997, it remained presumptively valid and the application was dismissed.

The London Transit Commission (LTC) appealed a motion judge's decision to strike its third-party claim against Eaton Industries (Canada) Company (Eaton) as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

LTC argued the motion judge erred in determining when it had actual or constructive knowledge of the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that LTC had actual or constructive knowledge of its claim against Eaton by May 22, 2013, and failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the contamination.

The court rejected LTC's arguments regarding a general rule for discoverability in environmental claims, continuing torts, and standalone claims, and declined to consider a new argument under the Environmental Protection Act.

Following the release of the appeal judgment, the parties requested on consent to amend the partial indemnity costs of the applications below.

The Court of Appeal allowed the amendment, reducing the costs awarded to the appellants for the proceedings below from $93,000 to $55,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

This appeal concerned a property dispute between neighbours over a two-foot wide strip of land.

The application judge had declared a prescriptive easement over a driveway portion and ownership by adverse possession over a backyard portion in favour of the respondents (original applicants).

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge made palpable and overriding errors.

Specifically, the court determined that the alleged prescriptive easement over the driveway was not "reasonably necessary" for the better enjoyment of the dominant tenement, but rather a personal convenience.

For the adverse possession claim, the court found the application judge misapprehended evidence regarding the true owner's exclusion from the backyard portion.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court's judgment and declaring the appellants' title unencumbered.

The applicant tenant, Old Navy, sought a declaration that a co-tenancy failure occurred under its commercial lease following the bankruptcy of another tenant, Danier Leather, entitling it to pay significantly reduced alternative rent.

The respondent landlord argued the lease provisions were ambiguous and that a co-tenancy failure required a catastrophic loss of tenants, not just one small retailer.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the tenant's application, finding its strict literal interpretation led to a commercial absurdity and violated principles of business efficacy.

The court granted the landlord's request for rectification, amending the lease to include a reciprocal termination right that had been agreed upon in the letter of intent but omitted from the final lease by mutual mistake.