Geoffrey B. Morawetz

In the context of Target Canada's CCAA proceedings, the Monitor sought advice and directions on whether to accept amended claims filed by Bell Canada and Bell Nexxia.

Bell sought to increase its original claims by approximately $4.1 million due to inadvertent calculation errors discovered after the claims bar date and after the original claims were admitted.

Target Corporation opposed the amendment.

Applying the Blue Range test, the court found that Bell acted in good faith, the errors were inadvertent, and admitting the amended claims would not cause relative prejudice to other creditors.

The court directed the Monitor to accept the amended claims for review, with Bell to bear the reasonable costs incurred by the Monitor and Target Canada due to the error.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a proposed class proceeding against the manufacturers of the anti-coagulant drug Pradaxa.

The appellants alleged the respondents breached a duty to warn that there was no antidote for the drug.

The motions judge found that the duty to warn was not a common issue, concluding there was no basis in fact that the failure to warn was a source of harm common across the class.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the motions judge did not err in principle or impermissibly weigh competing expert evidence, but correctly applied the 'some basis in fact' test using undisputed evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants brought an ex parte motion for a preliminary interim order under section 192(4) of the Canada Business Corporations Act to facilitate a recapitalization transaction.

The proposed arrangement aimed to reduce the company's debt obligations by more than $2 billion.

The court found that the statutory requirements were met, the arrangement was put forward in good faith, and it was impracticable to effect the fundamental change under any other provision.

The court granted the preliminary interim order, including a broad stay of proceedings, to allow the company to advance the recapitalization transaction.

The applicant, owner of a biomass electrical co-generation facility, sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

Facing significant debt, construction liens, and operational difficulties, the applicant required a stay of proceedings to implement a sales and investment solicitation process.

The court granted the Initial Order, including a stay of proceedings, authorization to pay critical pre-filing supplier expenses, approval of a $5 million DIP financing facility with a priority charge, and a sealing order over sensitive commercial information.

The moving parties (defendants) sought a temporary stay of the Ontario action on the basis that another proceeding regarding the same subject matter was pending in Florida.

The Florida action had been dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens, but an appeal was pending.

The court declined to grant the stay, finding that it would be unjust to the responding party (plaintiff) because it was unclear whether the moving parties intended to raise a statute of limitations defence for the period prior to May 5, 2015.

The court held that requiring the moving parties to deliver a statement of defence would clarify the limitations issue without imposing an onerous burden, and dismissed the motion without prejudice to bringing a further motion to stay after the statement of defence was delivered.

Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc., as Construction Receiver for Urbancorp entities, sought approval of its fees and its counsels' fees totaling over $3.4 million.

Terra Firma Capital Corporation, a junior secured creditor, objected to the fees of the Construction Receiver and its independent counsel (Blakes), seeking a 30% reduction, citing unreasonable hourly rates, disproportionate time spent, and duplication of services.

The court reviewed the fees based on the Belyea factors, emphasizing value provided over time spent.

The court found the receivership complex and the rates reasonable, but identified some duplication due to the excessive number of timekeepers from Blakes.

The court approved most fees but applied a minor reduction of $35,000 to Blakes' fees.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal which found that his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator preferred the objective medical evidence of the respondent's experts over the self-reported evidence of the appellant's treating physicians, noting credibility issues with the appellant.

The Divisional Court held that the adjudicator properly applied the law and that the decision was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed and the respondent cross-appealed a trial decision regarding equalization of net family property, spousal support, and retroactive child support.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the net family property valuation and erred in allowing the equalization payment to be made over time without a finding of hardship.

The court also awarded retroactive spousal support to the appellant, holding that the respondent's structured settlement annuity payments constituted income.

The cross-appeal regarding the exclusion of shares purchased with annuity funds was dismissed.

The Liquidator of Maple Bank GmbH's Canadian business sought an interim distribution of surplus funds to the German Insolvency Administrator (GIA) during winding-up proceedings.

The motion was unopposed.

The court approved the interim distribution, finding it appropriate given that adequate reserves were established to cover all proven and potential claims, ensuring no prejudice to Canadian creditors.

The court emphasized a broad, flexible interpretation of insolvency legislation and the policy of assisting foreign insolvency proceedings.

The applicant sought recognition of various interim orders, including an Interim DIP ABL Order, in a cross-border insolvency proceeding under the CCAA.

The court granted most of the requested relief but declined to recognize the Interim DIP ABL Order and the associated DIP ABL Lenders’ Charge.

The refusal was based on the lack of adequate protection for Canadian landlords, who would be detrimentally affected by the Canadian entities guaranteeing and collateralizing the DIP facility without receiving comparable security or the benefit of marshalling, unlike other creditor groups.

Payless Holdings LLC, as foreign representative for itself and other Chapter 11 Debtors, applied for recognition of its U.S. Chapter 11 proceedings as foreign main proceedings under the CCAA in Canada.

The application also sought recognition of certain First Day Orders and a stay of proceedings.

The court granted the Initial Recognition Order, finding the U.S. proceedings to be foreign main proceedings based on the integrated operations and U.S. center of main interest for the Canadian entities.

Certain stay provisions were also granted, with remaining issues adjourned.

The applicant brought a motion to stay a timetable order pending the determination of a motion for leave to appeal.

The timetable order required the applicant to attend questioning and a settlement conference by specific dates, which she argued she could not meet due to professional commitments and medical issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

The court held that the timetable order was discretionary, raised no serious issue to be tried, and that the applicant had not established irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the assessed value of a grocery store property.

The Board had determined the current value of the property as development land but then drastically reduced the assessed value by applying the equitable principle under the Assessment Act, comparing it only to two other grocery stores.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law and rendered an unreasonable decision by failing to consider all points of comparison to determine 'similar lands' and by failing to properly apply the equitable principle.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Board.

The Monitor of Target Canada Co. and its affiliates, undergoing CCAA proceedings, sought advice and directions from the court regarding the treatment of several late-filed claims.

The court applied the four-part test from *Blue Range Resource Corp. Re*, considering inadvertence, good faith, and prejudice to other creditors.

The court found that five claimants (Fruits & Passion, Lou Pharma, Kulwinder Kaur Rai, Capital Brands Inc., and Mohammad Alam) satisfied the test, allowing their claims against Target Canada Co. However, claims against Target Corporation and Target Brands were barred due to the prejudice caused by disturbing the sanctioned plan and releases, which Target Corporation relied upon for its significant contributions.

The court also provided directions on distributions for allowed late claims and a framework for addressing future unknown late claims, emphasizing the finality of the sanctioned plan.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal that confirmed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility project on Amherst Island.

The appellant raised nine issues, including the admission of expert evidence, consideration of mitigation measures outside the approval, factual findings regarding wildlife, and a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's evidentiary and procedural decisions were reasonable exercises of its discretion and statutory authority.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's factual findings or admit fresh evidence aimed at challenging those findings, as appeals to the court are strictly limited to questions of law under the Environmental Protection Act.

The applicant, a police sergeant, brought an application for judicial review of a hearing officer's decision declining to recuse himself for alleged bias during a disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the applicant had an automatic right of appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission once the penalty phase concluded.

The court reiterated that exceptional circumstances are required to justify early intervention by judicial review when an administrative appeal route exists.

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring them to be a single employer bound by a collective agreement and liable for damages.

The applicants argued procedural unfairness and challenged the Board's earlier certification and grievance decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it to be an improper collateral attack on previous Board decisions.

The Court held that the Board's procedures were fair and its calculation of damages, based on established principles for breaches of union security provisions in the construction industry, was reasonable.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a settlement and consent dismissal order.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act because the order appealed from was not for the payment of money, and the original claim was for $100,000, which exceeded the monetary limit.

The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim ruling by the Discipline Committee of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, which had deferred a decision on a motion to dismiss charges until the end of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature.

The court emphasized its reluctance to fragment administrative proceedings and noted that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to control its own process and defer its decision until a full evidentiary record was available.

The moving party brought a motion to strike an expert affidavit filed by the respondents in an Application for Judicial Review regarding the issuance of a stone quarry licence.

The moving party argued the affidavit was inadmissible as it was not before the decision-maker.

The respondents argued the evidence was necessary to determine if the Crown met its duty to consult and accommodate.

The court deferred the issue, ordering that the admissibility of the affidavit be determined by the full panel hearing the Application to avoid jeopardizing the scheduled hearing dates.