Eliot N. Kolers

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the motion judge dated May 8, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the responding parties.

The plaintiff, PPI Management Inc., sought to extend a Mareva injunction against the defendant Tianrui Li, freezing a Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC) alleged to be proceeds of a fraudulent scheme.

Li argued the initial injunction lacked foundation, that PPI made material non-disclosures, and that her evidence explained her actions, denying knowledge or involvement in the fraud.

The court found PPI established a strong prima facie case of Li's implication through recklessness or willful blindness, and a serious risk of asset dissipation.

The court dismissed Li's arguments regarding non-disclosure and continued the Mareva injunction until the final disposition of the underlying action, with costs awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant, a creditor of the Kyrgyz Republic, appealed the dismissal of its garnishment motion against Centerra Gold Inc., seeking to garnish a $50 million intercompany payment made by Centerra to its subsidiary, Kumtor Gold Company CJSC (KGC), as part of a court-approved plan of arrangement.

The appellant argued that the Kyrgyz Republic was the alter ego of KGC due to de facto appropriation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the application judge's determination that Centerra had not lost all control over KGC and was not deprived of all economic benefits, and that KGC remained a separate corporate entity.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order excluding from the class for certification persons who claim damages for purchases of packaged bread directly or indirectly sold by a defendant producer without being resold by a defendant retailer.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal on this issue and reserved costs to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The applicants, holding approximately nine percent of the units of First Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, requisitioned a special meeting to replace four trustees.

The board scheduled the meeting for May 16, 2023, five months after the requisition.

The applicants sought an order compelling the meeting to be held earlier.

The court found that the board's decision to delay the meeting was not deserving of deference, as the justifications provided—cost savings, allowing a business plan to unfold, and providing more time for unitholder consideration—were not compelling and prejudiced the requisitioning unitholders.

The application was granted, and the trust was ordered to hold the meeting as soon as practicable after March 1, 2023.

Following the approval of a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act, the successful applicant sought costs against the objecting creditors.

The objectors argued the applicant was disentitled to costs for failing to request them initially and that the quantum sought was excessive.

The court rejected the disentitlement argument, finding the objectors had notice that costs would be addressed in writing.

The court awarded $100,000 in costs, reducing the requested amount for proportionality, and ordered the costs payable jointly and severally by the objectors as they had pursued a common strategy.

The applicant mining company sought a final order approving a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act to sever ties with the Kyrgyz Republic following the state's seizure of its flagship mine.

Two unsecured judgment creditors of the Republic objected, seeking to enforce their arbitral awards against the Republic's shares in the applicant or garnish payments under the Arrangement.

The court approved the Arrangement, finding it met the statutory requirements, had a valid business purpose, and was fair and reasonable.

The court held the creditors lacked standing to oppose the Arrangement and that garnishment was inappropriate as it would result in double jeopardy.

The court held a case conference to settle the terms of a certification order following a decision to certify a class action regarding alleged price-fixing of packaged bread.

The court reviewed competing draft orders and approved the producer defendants' draft with specific amendments, including adjustments to the definition of packaged bread, the class definition, and the retention of constructive trust as a common issue.

This application concerned the interpretation of a dispute resolution clause in a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) regarding the calculation of a post-closing working capital adjustment.

The core issue was whether the purchaser, Rester Ontario Investments Inc., was permitted to provide narrative written submissions to an independent accountant in response to the vendor's, Elad Canada Operations Inc., dispute notice.

The court determined that the interpretation of the SPA was a matter for the court, not the independent accountant.

It ruled that narrative submissions were permissible, provided they did not alter the original calculations, and set page limits for both Rester's submissions and Elad's reply.

The applicant, Centerra Gold Inc., sought a permanent injunction against its former director, Tengiz Bolturuk, for breaching his fiduciary duties and duty of confidentiality.

Bolturuk, nominated by the Kyrgyz Republic's state-owned corporation, was found to have secretly orchestrated the takeover of Centerra's Kumtor gold mine by the Kyrgyz Republic while still a director, disclosing confidential information and subsequently becoming the External Manager of the seized mine.

The court found that Bolturuk's actions constituted a clear usurpation of corporate opportunity and a flagrant breach of his duties, rejecting his justifications.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction over a former director for breaches stemming from their position and found damages to be an inadequate remedy.

Bolturuk's cross-motion to set aside an interim injunction was dismissed.

The permanent injunction was granted, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against Bolturuk.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

Following a successful application regarding a restructuring support agreement, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of approximately $1.18 million based on a contractual covenant.

The respondents argued for partial indemnity costs.

The court held that while the contractual provision for full indemnity was an important factor, it did not override the court's discretion to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable.

Finding the hours docketed by the applicants' counsel excessive for a one-issue case, the court awarded a global all-inclusive costs amount of $800,000.

The applicants sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of the 'Outside Date' in a restructuring support agreement.

The respondent, a cannabis company, argued that any extension of the Outside Date required its initiation or consent.

The court found that the plain and ordinary meaning of the agreement allowed the lenders to automatically extend the Outside Date upon their written consent, acting reasonably, without the need for the respondent's consent.

The court granted the declaration sought by the applicants.

Wilks Brothers, LLC applied for a review of a decision by TSX Inc. granting exemptive relief to Calfrac Well Services Ltd. The relief allowed Calfrac to retroactively correct a shareholder vote related to its recapitalization, in which votes from an ineligible shareholder (AIMCo) were inadvertently included.

The Commission found that Wilks had standing to bring the application as it was directly affected by the TSX decision.

However, the Commission dismissed the application on the merits, finding that the TSX did not consider irrelevant grounds, did not impose an illegal condition, did not overlook material evidence, and appropriately considered the public interest.

The Commission concluded that the agreement to rescind AIMCo's subscription was not an issuer bid under NI 62-104.

The proposed intervener, a shareholder of the respondent corporation and leader of an investor group, brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in an application concerning the extension of an outside date for a recapitalization transaction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener's financial interest in the outcome did not constitute a direct interest in the subject matter of the private commercial dispute.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed intervener's intended evidence regarding foreign regulatory law would not make a useful contribution to the resolution of the proceeding.

The plaintiff in two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the canned tuna industry brought a motion for approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement.

The plaintiff could not bear the financial burden of funding the required expert evidence.

After extensive negotiations and due diligence, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Lake Whillans Fund.

The court applied the four-factor test for approving third-party funding agreements and found the agreement to be necessary for access to justice, fair, reasonable, and protective of the defendants' interests.

The motion to approve the funding agreement was granted.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.