David M. Trafford

This decision concerns the transition of the receivership of the "The One" development project at Yonge and Bloor in Toronto to Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The court granted a discharge order for the receiver, an initial CCAA order, and approved a transaction with Tridel Builders Inc. for project completion.

The court also denied an adjournment request from a late-appearing stakeholder, approved the appointment of a monitor and chief restructuring officer, and authorized various charges and reliefs to facilitate restructuring and maximize value for stakeholders.

The Court-appointed Receiver sought approval of its second report, activities, professional fees, and proposed distributions, including a significant distribution to RBC as a secured creditor.

The Debtor, 170 Willowdale Investments Corp., opposed the distribution to RBC, arguing that RBC lacked a registered security interest in the real property whose sale generated the proceeds, and thus had no priority claim to those proceeds.

The court found that the Debtor was in default of its obligations to RBC, and that RBC's general security agreement (GSA) granted a valid and perfected security interest in all of the Debtor's present and after-acquired personal property, including money and proceeds from the sale of any assets.

This appeal concerned a constitutional challenge by National Steel Car Limited to the costs of Ontario's Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) Program, arguing they constituted an unconstitutional tax disguised as a regulatory charge, primarily intended for economic stimulus.

The appellant contended that the program's true purpose was not related to electricity regulation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, dismissing the appeal.

The court found that the FIT Program's primary purpose was regulatory, aimed at increasing renewable energy generation, improving air quality, planning for future supply needs, and encouraging Indigenous and community participation, with economic stimulus being an incidental, not dominant, characteristic.

The court also affirmed the sufficiency of the application judge's reasons and his assessment of expert witness bias.

The plaintiff sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring the defendants to remediate a drainage channel that was allegedly causing flooding on its property.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants had obstructed the channel in breach of a municipal by-law and committed nuisance.

The court found a strong prima facie case but dismissed the motion, holding that the balance of convenience did not favour an injunction given the complexity of the required remediation and that the plaintiff's ten-year delay in seeking relief cast doubt on the prospect of irreparable harm.

The appellant tenant sued the respondent commercial landlord for damages arising from roof leaks and a non-functioning gas line.

The landlord obtained summary judgment dismissing the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by failing to resolve material factual disputes regarding when the tenant's obligation to insure commenced and whether the premises were insurable.

The motion judge also committed extricable errors of law in interpreting the 'as is' provisions of the lease by conflating 'Premises' and 'Building' and ignoring a relevant schedule.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment set aside.