Daniel V. MacDonald

The appellant landlord appealed a decision dismissing its appeal from a claims officer's ruling in a receivership proceeding.

The appellant argued the claims officer erred in characterizing certain assets as chattels rather than fixtures, improperly placed the burden of proof on the appellant, rejected expert evidence regarding how the assets were secured, and erred in assessing damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual determination of chattels versus fixtures, and no error in principle regarding the burden of proof or damages assessment.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside an ex parte order.

The ex parte order had dismissed their underlying motion regarding entitlement to sale proceeds because they failed to deliver expert material by the deadlines set in two consent scheduling orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly exercised his supervisory discretion over the receivership and correctly emphasized the need for compliance with court orders and the integrity of the Commercial List.

The Superintendent of Bankruptcy appealed an order approving the fees and disbursements of a trustee in bankruptcy on a final basis prior to the conclusion of the bankruptcy.

The Superintendent argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to do so before the completion of the statutory approval process involving inspectors and the Superintendent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 192 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act confers broad jurisdiction on the court to pass accounts and fix remuneration at such time as may be appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case.

The appellants, plastics moulders who manufactured parts for an insolvent company, sought leave to appeal an order refusing to set aside the ex parte dismissal of their motion claiming entitlement to funds held by the Interim Receiver.

The motion had been dismissed due to the appellants' failure to comply with a timetabling order.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the issue of whether the judge had jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order made pursuant to an earlier order on notice was of significance to the practice, the appeal was not frivolous, and any hindrance to the proceedings would not be undue.

Ardagh PLC, an unsuccessful bidder in a court-approved sale process under the CCAA, sought leave to appeal the order approving the sale of Consumers Packaging Inc.'s assets to Owens-Illinois, Inc. The Court of Appeal refused leave, noting that leave to appeal in CCAA proceedings should be granted sparingly and not where it would prejudice the restructuring.

The court also noted that an unsuccessful bidder generally lacks standing to challenge a sale approval order.