David Ullmann

Laurentian University brought an unopposed motion within its CCAA proceedings for an order extending the stay period to September 30, 2022, and an order approving a Pension Participation Agreement with the University of Sudbury.

The court found that the applicant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, justifying the stay extension.

The court also approved the pension agreement, finding it to be a fair and reasonable settlement that provided substantial benefits to stakeholders and was consistent with the purpose of the CCAA.

In the receivership proceedings of Bridging Finance Inc. and related entities, the Receiver brought a motion seeking approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP), a tolling order for limitation periods, a sealing order for confidential appendices, and the formation of Limited Partner Advisory Committees (LPACs).

An Ad Hoc Group of Retail Investors brought a cross-motion seeking the appointment of Representative Counsel.

The court granted the Receiver's requests, finding the KERP necessary, the sealing order justified under the Sherman Estate test, and the LPACs appropriate for providing input during the strategic review.

The court time-limited the LPACs to 60 days and dismissed the motion for Representative Counsel with leave to reassess in 60 days, prioritizing the portfolio review before addressing allocation issues.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for Sears Canada, the Monitor brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement with several former landlords regarding the valuation of their claims.

The landlords disputed the Monitor's calculation of their claims under the agreed Landlord Claim Formula and sought disclosure of the underlying calculations.

The court held that the landlords were entitled to the disclosure and could dispute the calculations, but only using the sources permitted by the formula.

Additionally, the court ordered one landlord, Primaris, to repay $10,000 it had unilaterally withheld for legal fees when returning a mistaken payment.

The court heard two motions in a receivership proceeding.

The Receiver moved for its discharge and release from liability, having completed its mandate to close a sale transaction.

A creditor brought a motion to compel the Receiver to answer 114 questions, unseal confidential appendices, and pay out funds held in trust for its s. 81.1 claim.

The court dismissed the creditor's requests for answers and payment, finding the questions to be an unreasonable fishing expedition and the payment premature as the claim was not yet determined.

The request to unseal documents was adjourned to allow the affected party to respond.

The court granted the Receiver's discharge, finding no evidence of improper conduct.