G. Benchetrit

In an insolvency proceeding involving syndicated mortgage investments, a claimant sought approximately $103,000 in fees for services allegedly provided to the Investors' Committee, along with a court-ordered priority charge against the respondents' assets.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that no binding contract was ever formed as the parties had not agreed on all material terms and the claimant had insisted on a signed agreement.

The court also rejected a claim in quantum meruit, concluding the claimant provided services gratuitously while negotiating a retainer.

Finally, the court held there was no basis in its inherent jurisdiction to grant a retroactive priority charge for the claimant's fees.

The moving parties, construction lien creditors of the Mady Group of Companies, brought a motion seeking to lift a CCAA stay of proceedings, amend their statements of claim, and obtain a Mareva injunction against several individuals and corporations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to make full and fair disclosure, failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud or breach of trust, and provided no evidence of a risk of dissipation or removal of assets from the jurisdiction.

The applicants, minority shareholders, commenced an oppression application against the respondents, the majority shareholders and the corporation.

The parties consented to a trial to determine the value of the applicants' shares, which the respondents would purchase.

The court resolved several methodological disputes between the parties' expert valuators regarding maintainable earnings, capitalization rates, and redundant assets.

Crucially, the court held that no minority discount should be applied to the valuation of the applicants' shares, as the purchase was a compulsory consolidation of the majority's position rather than an open market transaction.

The applicants and respondents entered into joint venture agreements to invest in commercial real estate projects through jointly owned companies.

The applicants discovered that the respondents were commingling funds, failing to make their required equity contributions, and diverting the applicants' funds to their own personal benefit and to companies they solely owned.

The court found that the respondents breached their contractual and fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

The court imposed constructive trusts over several properties owned by the respondents, appointed a receiver over the respondents' assets, and cancelled the respondents' shares in the jointly owned companies where they had not contributed equity.

A creditor brought a motion under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking authorization to continue foreign enforcement proceedings after the trustee refused to proceed.

The proceedings in Taiwan sought recognition and enforcement of Ontario contempt costs orders against property owned by a defendant abroad.

The trustee opposed the motion, arguing the claims lacked merit, raised potential set‑off issues, and conflicted with settlements and releases.

The court held the creditor met the threshold under s. 38 because the costs orders remained outstanding and the proposed claim was not spurious.

Leave was granted permitting the creditor to continue the Taiwan proceeding at its own expense with assignment of the trustee’s interest for that limited purpose.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants (Hollinger Inc. et al.) sought approval of settlement agreements with their former auditors (KPMG) and lawyers (Torys).

The Non-Settling Defendants, including Conrad Black and David Radler, opposed the settlements, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the included third-party releases and bar orders would deprive them of procedural rights to discovery.

The court held it had jurisdiction under the CCAA to manage litigation as a corporate asset.

The court approved the Pierringer-style settlements, finding that the procedural rights of the Non-Settling Defendants could be adequately protected through active case management and the application of the principle of proportionality in discovery.

The court considered a motion to approve a debtor proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act after creditor approval.

It held the proposal terms were not reasonable because key records were not produced, the trustee could not provide an opinion on exclusion provisions, and the proposed structure risked prejudice to creditor recovery rights.

The court also found statutory grounds requiring security were proved and concluded the offered funding did not satisfy the required security threshold.

The motion to approve the proposal was dismissed to protect creditor interests and the integrity of the insolvency process.