Francy Kussner

In the context of CCAA proceedings, representative counsel for pharmacist franchisees brought a motion for approval of their fees and disbursements totaling approximately $1.95 million.

The Pharmacy Franchisee Association of Canada and several individual pharmacists objected to the fees on various grounds, including the allocation of fees and the overall amount.

The court dismissed the objections, finding that the fees were properly allocated based on when claims were resolved and that the total amount was fair and reasonable given the complexity of the matter, the time expended, and the results achieved.

The fee request was approved in full.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for Target Canada, the Monitor brought a motion for a declaration that the claim of a pharmacist franchisee, T-Pharma, was fully and finally resolved except for the amount to be deducted for mitigation.

The assignee of the claim opposed the motion, raising various issues including claims for reimbursement of bank loans and legal retainers.

The court found that the respondent's objections were impermissible collateral attacks attempting to re-litigate issues already decided by the Claims Officer and upheld on appeal.

The court granted the Monitor's declaration and set a schedule for determining the final mitigation amount.

In the context of Target Canada's CCAA proceedings, the Monitor sought advice and directions on whether to accept amended claims filed by Bell Canada and Bell Nexxia.

Bell sought to increase its original claims by approximately $4.1 million due to inadvertent calculation errors discovered after the claims bar date and after the original claims were admitted.

Target Corporation opposed the amendment.

Applying the Blue Range test, the court found that Bell acted in good faith, the errors were inadvertent, and admitting the amended claims would not cause relative prejudice to other creditors.

The court directed the Monitor to accept the amended claims for review, with Bell to bear the reasonable costs incurred by the Monitor and Target Canada due to the error.

The applicant, having been entirely successful in the underlying application, sought partial indemnity costs of $89,703.50.

The respondent argued for no costs or a maximum of $50,000, citing the applicant's failed allegation of bad faith.

The court noted that much of the parties' submissions were not directed to the determinative issue, which the court identified independently based on the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The court also questioned the necessity of multiple counsel.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the reduced amount of $68,407.68 plus HST.

The applicant purchaser and respondent vendor entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for land in Markham.

The agreement required the vendor to obtain a severance at its sole expense, unless the conditions imposed were 'onerous or unreasonable'.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the severance subject to the condition that the owner sign a Cost Sharing Agreement and pay $407,582.

The vendor argued this was onerous and unreasonable, while the purchaser argued it was the vendor's responsibility.

The court interpreted the agreement, specifically the zoning clause, and found that the parties intended for the land to be rezoned and operational at the time of sale, which required the cost sharing payment.

The court held the condition was not onerous or unreasonable and ordered the vendor to repay the $407,582 to the purchaser.

The liquidator of an insolvent insurance company brought a motion to approve settlement agreements with two tobacco companies.

The settlements included a condition requiring court approval of releases that would bar third-party claims against the insurer.

Several provincial Crowns and class action representatives opposed the settlements, arguing they had direct statutory claims against the insurer and were not bound by the Winding-Up and Restructuring Act (WURA).

The court held that the WURA does not expressly or implicitly bind the Crown, nor did the Crowns waive immunity under the benefit/burden doctrine as they had not yet made claims in the liquidation.

The motion to approve the settlements was dismissed.