Fred Myers

In CCAA proceedings involving a mining company, competing motions were brought concerning the restructuring process.

The debtor sought directions regarding the procedure for resolving noteholder claims and the alleged misuse of confidential information by certain creditors, while the noteholders sought an order convening a meeting of creditors to vote on their proposed plan of arrangement.

The court held that calling a creditors’ meeting was premature because the proposed plan conflicted with the debtor-in-possession financing facility, had been introduced without meaningful consultation, and unresolved claims and litigation issues could affect voting rights and recoveries.

The court dismissed the noteholders’ motion without prejudice and declined to order disclosure sought by the debtor.

The stay of proceedings was extended to facilitate continued negotiations and mediation.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs following summary judgment motions and the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing the allegations were akin to accusations of fraud and were unsubstantiated.

The plaintiffs argued that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for rare and exceptional cases involving reprehensible litigation conduct.

The court held that although the defendant succeeded on the motions, the plaintiffs’ conduct was not reprehensible and their cross‑motion was not unreasonable.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined that partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

The defendant was awarded $150,000 in costs for the motions and the action.

The moving party union appealed a decision of a Claims Officer in a CCAA proceeding.

The Claims Officer had determined that a motion in annulment brought by the union in Quebec regarding an arbitration award for lockout damages was not meritorious.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Claims Officer applied the correct standard and made no error in principle or law in concluding that the arbitrator had properly exercised his jurisdiction.