Gavin Hamish Finlayson

The Nortel group of companies filed for insolvency protection across multiple jurisdictions.

Following the sale of Nortel's assets, approximately $7.3 billion was placed in escrow.

The trial judge ordered that these lockbox funds be allocated on a pro rata basis among the various debtor estates, finding that Nortel operated as a highly integrated multinational enterprise and that the master research and development agreement did not govern allocation upon insolvency.

Several parties sought leave to appeal under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals were not prima facie meritorious, did not raise issues of significance to the practice, and would unduly hinder the progress of the proceedings.

The appellants, holding unsecured crossover bonds, appealed a CCAA judge's decision that the common law 'interest stops' rule applies in CCAA proceedings, preventing them from claiming post-filing interest above their principal debt and pre-petition interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the 'interest stops' rule is a fundamental tenet of insolvency law that applies to CCAA proceedings to ensure fair treatment of creditors and orderly administration.

The Court clarified that while creditors cannot legally claim post-filing interest, the rule does not preclude a negotiated CCAA plan from providing for such payments.

Various parties brought motions seeking reconsideration or clarification of a prior joint allocation decision determining the distribution of $7.3 billion in escrow among debtor estates in multinational insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties argued that aspects of the allocation methodology—including treatment of bond guarantee claims, certain asset sale proceeds, intercompany claims, tax claims, and settled claims—required amendment or clarification.

The court reiterated that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and rejected most requests because the issues either had been addressed at trial or could have been raised earlier.

Limited clarification was granted regarding the treatment of bondholder claims against guarantors and recognition of certain court‑approved settled pre‑filing claims that had been paid.

Other requested clarifications or amendments were denied.

The plaintiffs moved for certification of a products liability class action against the defendants regarding pelvic mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while the plaintiffs satisfied the cause of action, identifiable class, and representative plaintiff criteria, they failed to establish some-basis-in-fact for the commonality and preferable procedure criteria due to the multifarious nature of the 19 different products involved.

The dismissal was made subject to an 'Alternatives Motion' to allow the plaintiffs to propose continuing the proceeding in an altered form.

In CCAA proceedings arising from the liquidation of a multinational telecommunications company, bondholders claimed entitlement to post‑filing interest exceeding US$1.6 billion in addition to principal and pre‑filing interest of approximately US$4.092 billion.

The court considered whether the common law "interest stops rule" applies in CCAA proceedings, particularly in a liquidating CCAA context.

Applying insolvency principles of pari passu distribution and relying on Supreme Court guidance emphasizing the integrated nature of the CCAA and BIA regimes, the court held that post‑filing interest does not accrue against the insolvent estate.

The court rejected arguments that contractual entitlement to interest survives the filing or that distributions require a negotiated plan recognizing such interest.

Accordingly, crossover bondholders were limited to principal and pre‑petition interest claims.

In long‑running insolvency proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the court was asked to determine whether unsecured bondholders were entitled to claim post‑filing interest on crossover bonds after the debtor companies entered CCAA protection.

The court considered the common law “interest stops” rule, the pari passu principle governing distribution to unsecured creditors, and the relationship between the CCAA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that the interest stops rule applies in CCAA proceedings and prevents unsecured creditors from claiming post‑filing interest absent a negotiated plan providing for such payments.

Allowing interest to accrue for some creditors during the stay period would undermine the status quo and distort equality among creditors.

The court further held it had jurisdiction to determine the issue even without a proposed plan of arrangement.

The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order requiring it to pay the legal fees of Nortel's executives without reference to a $10 million retention amount or a directors and officers trust fund.

The motion judge had found that the indemnification was a pre-filing claim subject to the CCAA stay, and that allowing access to the trust would improperly elevate the insurer's priority.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding the motion judge's conclusions were within his expertise and entitled to deference, and the issues were specific to the case rather than of broader interest.

The Court also declined to consider fresh evidence filed by the applicant because no motion for leave to admit it was brought.

The EMEA Debtors sought leave to appeal an order approving an Allocation Protocol that provided for a joint trial by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to allocate over US$7 billion in proceeds from the sale of Nortel assets.

The moving parties argued the joint trial violated the Ontario court's independence and that the parties had previously agreed to binding arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal lacked prima facie merit as the joint trial did not infringe judicial independence and the relevant agreement did not mandate arbitration.

The applicants sought approval under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act for a sale of substantially all of their assets following a court‑approved sales and investor solicitation process.

The court considered the statutory factors in s. 36 of the CCAA, including the fairness and reasonableness of the process, the role of the monitor, consultation with creditors, and the adequacy of the consideration.

A late competing bid was rejected to preserve the integrity of the court‑approved sales process.

The court also addressed priority issues involving a DIP lender, secured creditors, and potential claims to HST refunds under the Financial Administration Act.

The proposed transaction and distribution scheme were approved as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellants, representing unionized and non-unionized former employees of Nortel, appealed a decision dismissing their motions for directions to compel Nortel to pay severance, termination, and retirement benefits during its CCAA restructuring.

The appellants argued that the payments were protected under s. 11.3(a) of the CCAA as compensation for ongoing services, and that the CCAA stay could not override provincial Employment Standards Act obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the payments were for past services and that the doctrine of federal paramountcy allowed the CCAA stay to suspend the immediate payment obligations under the provincial legislation to facilitate the restructuring.

In a CCAA proceeding, the appellant sought to enforce a Memorandum of Agreement to purchase the debtor's assets after missing a deadline.

The motion judge found the agreement had expired.

The respondents moved to quash the appeal on the basis that leave was required under s. 13 of the CCAA.

The Court of Appeal held that leave was required because the order was made under the CCAA.

The Court dismissed the appellant's cross-motion for leave to appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's findings on expiration and estoppel, and concluding the proposed appeal lacked significance to the practice.

The applicant, acting as receiver and manager of a company, applied under s. 17(1) of the Securities Act for an order permitting the use of transcripts of compelled testimony in civil proceedings against the company's former auditor.

The Commission dismissed the application, holding that the public interest under s. 17 relates to balancing the integrity of the investigative process and the privacy of those investigated, and does not include facilitating civil actions by investors.

The Commission also confirmed that the applicant could ask relevant questions in the civil proceedings provided the transcripts were not used or referenced.

The appellant, DeGasperis Muzzo Corporation, appealed a judgment declaring that the mortgage security interests of Montreal Trust and Stadco in the SkyDome ranked in priority to its leasehold interest in a SkyBox suite.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the mortgage instruments were registered prior to the leasehold interest under the Land Titles Act, and that the appellant had agreed to subordinate its interest in the lease.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed.