Geoff Hall

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants sought a Funding Order to compel Securitization Parties and other secured lenders to fund a $40 million wind-down of the remaining entities.

The court dismissed the motion for the Funding Order, finding that section 11.01(b) of the CCAA expressly prohibits orders requiring the further advance of money or credit.

Consequently, the court also declined to approve a Key Employee Retention Plan, as it was dependent on the unavailable funding.

The court did, however, grant a temporary sealing order for the KERP details and extended the stay of proceedings to November 29, 2024.

In the context of a CCAA restructuring, the respondent was previously ordered to specifically perform its obligation to reconvey certain lands to a special purpose entity, which had agreed to sell a portion of those lands to the moving party.

The respondent refused to complete the reconveyance, arguing that the parties had not agreed on the terms of 'shared facilities and/or reciprocal easement agreements' required under the reconveyance agreement.

The moving party brought a motion for the court to interpret the agreement and impose terms.

The court held it had jurisdiction to determine the terms of the reconveyance and found that the respondent's demanded easements (including for undefined future utilities, carbon sequestration, and emissions) were not valid easements at common law and did not meet the contractual requirement of being 'shared' or 'reciprocal'.

The court directed the parties to attempt one final negotiation before it would impose the final terms of the easement agreement.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from terminating an agreement for the supply of water and wastewater treatment services.

The defendant had threatened to terminate the services on 60 days' notice unless the plaintiffs paid a massive retroactive price increase.

The court found that the injunction was prohibitory, but that the plaintiffs had met the higher standard of a strong prima facie case regardless.

The court held that the defendant's use of the termination clause to extort a unilateral price increase was a strong prima facie breach of the duty of good faith performance.

Finding irreparable harm and a balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs, the court granted the injunction for nine months to allow the plaintiffs to build their own water recycling facilities.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, two major banks, sued to recover funds wired to the defendant money services business as a result of a fraud perpetrated by third parties.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it received the funds without knowledge of the fraud and changed its position in good faith by arranging equivalent payments in Chinese yuan to a foreign account.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the defendant actually changed its position in good faith, given conflicting expert evidence on its anti-money laundering compliance and the lack of direct evidence regarding the foreign exchange transactions.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for $1,326,491.18 in unpaid fees for e-commerce services provided to the defendant.

The defendant argued the motion was premature and raised a counterclaim for equitable set-off, alleging the plaintiff induced a related entity to breach an inspection rights agreement.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the defendant failed to put its best foot forward or provide evidence of inducement.

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

La demanderesse, un organisme de bienfaisance enregistré, a contesté l'interprétation et l'application par l'Agence du revenu du Canada (ARC) du paragraphe 149.1(6.2) de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

L'ARC limitait à 10 % les ressources qu'un organisme pouvait consacrer à des activités politiques non partisanes.

La Cour a conclu que cette restriction portait atteinte à la liberté d'expression garantie par l'alinéa 2b) de la Charte, car elle empêchait la demanderesse de poursuivre ses fins de bienfaisance par la défense d'intérêts publics.

L'atteinte n'était pas justifiée au regard de l'article premier de la Charte.

La Cour a déclaré que les activités politiques non partisanes contribuant aux fins de bienfaisance doivent être considérées comme des activités de bienfaisance sans restriction de pourcentage.

Investors who lost $17 million in a fraudulent certificate of deposit scheme brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim against a bank that had acted as a correspondent bank for the fraudster.

Earlier pleadings alleging a general duty on banks to monitor customers for fraud had been struck for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The proposed amendments added detailed allegations based on documents obtained by liquidators showing internal concerns within the bank about suspicious activities and regulatory issues surrounding the customer.

The court held that the amended pleading alleged a more specific duty arising from particular knowledge and circumstances rather than a broad duty to investigate customers generally.

Because the new allegations relied on information not reasonably available earlier and could potentially support a tenable claim, leave to amend was granted.

The applicant, a creditor of the debtor company under CCAA protection, sought an order authorizing it to file a plan of compromise or arrangement and directing meetings of affected creditors to vote on the plan.

The proposed plan did not include a shareholder vote.

The debtor opposed the application, arguing the plan was not in the best interests of stakeholders and improperly excluded shareholders.

The court found that because the debtor's shares had potential equity value depending on the outcome of pending litigation, and the proposed plan would radically alter the economic prospects of the shares, a shareholder vote was required.

The application to order a meeting of creditors without a shareholder vote was denied.