Derek Joseph Harland

The foreign representative of a Chapter 11 debtor group brought a motion for recognition in Canada of a US Bankruptcy Court confirmation order approving a reorganization plan.

The motion was unopposed.

A group of co-defendants in Canadian opioid litigation sought a bar order (Pierringer-type protection) as a term of the recognition order, which was opposed by a provincial government.

The court granted the recognition order, finding no public policy grounds under s. 61(2) of the CCAA to refuse recognition and that the new plan's consensual-only third-party releases were consistent with Canadian insolvency law.

The court declined to impose the bar order, distinguishing the applicable authorities and holding that the co-defendants' position arose from the plan's releases — not from a prior government stipulation — and that the co-defendants had already received bar order protection in a separate settlement.

This decision concerns an appeal under section 45(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, from an arbitral award regarding four disputes arising out of a major public-private partnership infrastructure project (Highway 427 expansion).

The appellant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (as represented by the Minister of Transportation and Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation), challenged the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of the Project Agreement on four issues: the Crossfall Dispute, the Zenway Boulevard Dispute, the 407 ETR Dispute, and the 2014-2016 Dispute.

The court held that the tribunal correctly identified and applied the principles of contractual interpretation, found no extricable errors of law, and dismissed the appeal.

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.

The People's Trust Company, as assignee of Enlightened Funding Corporation, brought a motion seeking an order to compel Deloitte Restructuring Inc., the court-appointed Receiver of Velocity Asset and Credit Corporation and 926749 Ontario Ltd., to produce documents relevant to the personal bankruptcy application against Hugh Waddell, the principal of the Respondents.

Despite Waddell's non-cooperation and previous adjournments, the court dismissed the motion.

The court found that the Receiver's appointment order, specifically section 4(m) concerning information sharing, was not broad enough to authorize production for purposes outside the receivership's primary objectives.

The court emphasized that the documents were sought to prosecute the bankruptcy application against Waddell, not to advance the receivership of the Respondents.

The court noted that other avenues exist within the Bankruptcy Application to compel such production.

The moving party, AutoLoans, sought a declaration of ownership over four vehicles, asserting a purchase agreement with Clonsilla Auto Sales and Leasing.

The court-appointed Receiver, Deloitte Restructuring Inc., opposed, arguing the transaction was a financing arrangement and, alternatively, a preferential transfer under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the executed Fixed Rate Installment Notes (FRINs) constituted a binding financing transaction that was not legally displaced by subsequent backdated purchase documents.

Consequently, the vehicles remained property of the debtors, and AutoLoans' motion was dismissed.

In a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding, the applicants sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order (ARIO) to extend a stay of proceedings, approve debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, and increase court-ordered priority charges.

A central issue was whether Ernst & Young Inc. (E&Y) should continue as Monitor, given that an affiliate had acted as the applicants' auditor within the two-year restricted period under CCAA s. 11.7(2).

The court granted the stay extension, approved the DIP financing, and increased the charges, finding these necessary for the restructuring.

However, the court denied E&Y's continuation as Monitor, emphasizing a stricter interpretation of CCAA s. 11.7(2).

The court found no "extenuating or unique circumstances" to override the general rule against appointing a former auditor within the restricted period, despite arguments of cost-effectiveness and existing knowledge.

FTI Consulting Canada Inc. was appointed as the new Monitor.

Thorneloe University sought leave to appeal a CCAA judge's decision that allowed Laurentian University to disclaim federation agreements and approved a debtor-in-possession (DIP) loan amendment.

Thorneloe argued the disclaimer would cause its insolvency, provided minimal financial benefit to Laurentian, and was motivated by anti-competition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the leave motion, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious, not of significance to the practice, and would unduly hinder the progress of the CCAA restructuring.

The court upheld the CCAA judge's balancing of interests under s. 32(4) of the CCAA, emphasizing the high deference owed to supervising judges in CCAA proceedings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario refused leave to appeal a sealing order issued by a CCAA supervising judge in the Laurentian University insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties, including faculty unions, sought access to confidential documents (letters between Laurentian and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities) that were sealed to protect restructuring efforts.

The Court applied the Sierra Club test for sealing orders and the four-factor test for leave to appeal in CCAA cases, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious, would unduly hinder the time-sensitive restructuring, and was not of sufficient significance to the action.

The court emphasized deference to the supervising judge's discretion in complex CCAA matters.

Laurentian University sought orders under the CCAA to apply a 65.8% Transfer Ratio to commuted value pension transfers for 27 individuals and to confirm a stay on pre-filing Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (PBGF) assessments.

The court granted the application to apply the Transfer Ratio, finding it necessary to preserve pension plan assets and ensure equitable treatment among beneficiaries, despite objections from some affected individuals who argued they relied on a 100% transfer ratio.

The court also confirmed the stay on PBGF assessments, characterizing them as pre-filing obligations based on when the amount was determined.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a challenge to a sealing order granted in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of Laurentian University of Sudbury.

The sealing order covered confidential correspondence between the University and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, which Laurentian University argued contained sensitive information that, if disclosed, could jeopardize its restructuring efforts.

Parties opposing the sealing order contended there was no evidentiary basis for it.

Applying the two-branch test from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), the court found that the disclosure posed a real and substantial risk to the University's future viability, that the "commercial" interest extended to the broader community, and that no reasonable alternatives existed given ongoing mediation.

Consequently, the court maintained the confidentiality of the exhibits and the existing sealing order.

Laurentian University (LU) sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to facilitate its restructuring.

The requested relief included an extension of the stay of proceedings until April 30, 2021, approval of a $25 million Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) facility, an increase in the Administration Charge to $1.25 million, and an increase in the Directors' Charge to $5 million.

LU also sought a stay of pre-filing and post-filing special payments to its defined benefit pension plan and a stay of requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The court granted all requested relief, finding it necessary and reasonable for the continued operation and restructuring of the university.

The sealing order for certain confidential exhibits was maintained pending a supplementary endorsement.