Frank Douglas Lamie

The Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) brought a motion under the CCAA seeking an order to restructure the Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada (VON Canada) pension plan.

The ONA proposed transferring assets and liabilities related to VON Ontario employees into a new pension plan and sought a declaration that VON Ontario was not jointly and severally liable for any pension deficits.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ONA's proposal did not advance the CCAA's policy objectives of fostering going concern restructuring and avoiding liquidation.

The court also applied the business judgment rule, deferring to VON Canada's board decision to maintain the status quo, and deemed the request for a declaration on future liabilities premature and speculative.

The applicants, a group of real estate development companies, sought an Initial Order under the CCAA and the continuation of their NOI proceedings under the CCAA.

Concurrently, the foreign representative of the parent company sought recognition of Israeli insolvency proceedings as a foreign main proceeding under Part IV of the CCAA.

The court approved a Co-operation Protocol between the foreign representative and the proposed Monitor, recognized the Israeli proceeding as a foreign main proceeding, and granted the Initial Order.

The court also extended the stay of proceedings to related limited partnerships and approved various administrative and interim financing charges.

The trustee in bankruptcy for several related real estate development companies brought applications to determine the priority of claims against the proceeds of a sold property and to set aside various payments and security granted to an investor, Dr. Goldfinger, as transfers at undervalue, fraudulent conveyances, or unjust preferences.

The court allowed some of the proofs of claim while disallowing others or requiring further evidence.

The court dismissed the trustee's claim to set aside a $2.5 million settlement payment to Goldfinger, finding it was made at arm's length and without intent to defraud creditors.

However, the court set aside a $471,000 payment to Goldfinger as a fraudulent conveyance, finding it was made with the intent to defeat another secured creditor, and ordered Goldfinger to repay the amount to the bankrupt estate.

Honeywell brought a motion in Comstock's CCAA proceedings seeking an order directing Comstock to disclaim a subcontract or, alternatively, lifting the stay of proceedings to allow Honeywell to terminate the subcontract.

Comstock had ceased performance on the construction project and stopped paying Honeywell.

The court held it could not force a disclaimer under section 32 of the CCAA without the Monitor's approval.

However, because Comstock was no longer actively involved in the project and it would not form part of the restructuring, the court lifted the stay of proceedings to allow Honeywell to pursue its options.

The applicants sought continuation of insolvency proceedings from a Notice of Intention to make a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act into proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

The court considered whether the statutory requirements for continuation were satisfied and whether interim restructuring relief, including DIP financing, priority charges, and a stay of proceedings, should be granted.

The court found the debtor companies were insolvent and that continuation under the CCAA would stabilize operations, preserve employment, and maximize recovery for stakeholders.

The court approved DIP financing with a super‑priority charge, granted administration and director charges, authorized payment of critical suppliers, and ordered substituted service and sealing of confidential financial information.

The applicant debtor sought an urgent order appointing an interim receiver under s. 47.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act during a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal proceeding.

The motion requested authority for the interim receiver to borrow up to $1.5 million on a super‑priority basis to fund payroll and contractor obligations in order to maintain business operations.

The court held that the appointment was necessary to protect the debtor’s estate and the interests of creditors.

It further concluded that a super‑priority borrowing charge was appropriate despite the absence of explicit statutory authority for such financing in relation to interim receivers, relying on the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The charges were granted with priority over construction lien and trust claims to avoid operational shutdown and preserve restructuring prospects.

Recognition proceedings were brought under the cross‑border insolvency provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act concerning a foreign main liquidation proceeding in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.

Multiple parties asserted competing claims to approximately $4 million in assets held by a Canadian financial institution.

Motions were pending regarding whether a stay of proceedings should be lifted or modified to permit bankruptcy proceedings in Canada or enforcement of claimed interests.

The court held there was insufficient time to fully argue the issues and maintained the existing interim stay and related orders to preserve the status quo pending a full hearing.

The endorsement emphasized that the interim directions were not intended to interfere with the foreign main proceeding.

In a bankruptcy proceeding involving the estate of a bankrupt developer, the moving parties sought determination of priorities among claims.

During the hearing, counsel requested that transcripts of viva voce evidence be provided in a fully searchable electronic format for use in the continuation of the hearing.

The court found the request reasonable in modern litigation practice, noting the increasing reliance on electronic transcripts by both counsel and judges.

Given the lack of standardized electronic transcript formats prescribed by the Ministry of the Attorney General, the court ordered that the transcripts be produced in a fully word-searchable electronic format.

The appellant faced allegations before the Ontario Securities Commission regarding an alleged Ponzi scheme.

He sought a third-party production order from a court-appointed receiver in an unrelated proceeding to obtain documents for his defence.

The motion judge granted partial production.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant was not an 'interested person' in the receivership because he sought the documents for a collateral purpose.

Furthermore, the Court found it inappropriate for the Superior Court to make interlocutory procedural orders regarding a proceeding pending before a tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed and the receiver's cross-appeal was allowed.

The moving party sought production of documents and information held by a court‑appointed receiver in connection with an investigation related to alleged securities fraud proceedings before the Ontario Securities Commission.

The court considered whether the principles governing third‑party production established in R. v. O'Connor and R. v. McNeil applied to records held by a receiver acting as an officer of the court.

It held that although receivers generally are not required to disclose investigative materials beyond their reports, that protection cannot override an accused’s constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

Applying the O'Connor framework, the court required the moving party to demonstrate that the requested records were “likely relevant.” Only limited categories of documents met that threshold, including certain materials from lawyers, the accountant, and recovered emails, while most requests were rejected as speculative fishing expeditions.

Skyservice Airlines Inc. went into receivership leaving unpaid airport and air navigation charges.

The airport authorities and NAV Canada obtained orders to seize and detain aircraft leased by Skyservice to recover the amounts owed.

The aircraft lessors appealed, arguing that Skyservice no longer 'owned or operated' the aircraft at the time of the applications due to the receivership, suspension of its air operator certificate, and the lessors' attempts to terminate the leases.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Canada 3000, holding that Skyservice remained the registered owner and operator in possession of the aircraft at the relevant time, and the statutory detention remedy takes priority over the lessors' property interests.

The applicant secured creditor moved to lift a stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act in order to appoint a receiver over insolvent debtor corporations.

The evidence showed that the court-approved sales process had collapsed, further DIP funding was unavailable after a sales process default, and the debtor companies’ board of directors had resigned, leaving operations effectively shut down.

The monitor supported the motion and no party opposed it.

Applying principles governing the lifting of a CCAA stay, including prejudice to stakeholders and the likelihood that the restructuring would fail, the court concluded that receivership was necessary to stabilize the situation and preserve asset value.