D. Murdoch

The moving parties sought an order requiring the responding party, a franchisee corporation, to post security for costs in relation to a counterclaim and third party proceedings arising from a franchise dispute.

The court considered Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and whether the circumstances justified ordering security for costs against the counterclaim plaintiff.

The court held that the third parties were not entitled to security for costs because none of the recognized exceptions permitting recovery of third party costs from a plaintiff applied.

However, the defendant by counterclaim established that the responding party had previously pursued substantially identical relief in earlier proceedings and had failed to satisfy outstanding costs orders exceeding $40,000.

The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in favour of the defendant by counterclaim.

Competing applications sought declarations regarding when interest began accruing on a promissory note issued as part of consideration for a receiver-approved asset sale.

The note holder argued that interest accrued from the asset purchase agreement’s final closing date, while the issuer sought rectification of the note to reflect a court‑approved amended form that tied interest payments to the note issuance date.

The court held the issuer had mistakenly issued an outdated form of note contrary to the prior court order approving the amended form.

Rectification was granted so the issued note conformed to the court‑approved amended note.

Interest therefore began accruing only once the note was issued following the priorities order identifying the noteholder and principal amount.

The applicants, facing severe liquidity issues and unable to meet financial covenants, sought protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The court found the applicants met the statutory definitions of 'company' and 'debtor company' and that a stay of proceedings was necessary to allow them to maintain operations and complete a sales process.

The court granted the Initial Order, which included the appointment of a Chief Restructuring Officer, approval of a DIP facility, various priority charges (Administration, Critical Supplier, Directors', and DIP Lenders'), and a Cross-Border Protocol to coordinate with parallel Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States.

The applicants, companies engaged in leasing motor vehicles and equipment, sought a declaration that the Bulk Sales Act did not apply to a proposed asset securitization financing transaction involving the periodic sale of leases and related equipment to a special purpose vehicle.

The transaction was designed to raise operational financing while the applicants continued operating their businesses.

The court examined the purpose and scope of the Bulk Sales Act and the definition of a "sale in bulk".

It held that the proposed transaction constituted an ordinary-course financing technique and did not amount to a sale of assets out of the usual course of business.

Accordingly, the Act did not apply to the transaction.