Geoffrey B. Morawetz

The appellant sought leave to appeal a costs order of $10,000 following the settlement of a slip and fall action for $15,000.

The appellant had originally claimed over $750,000 and incurred disbursements exceeding the settlement amount.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in principle and that the costs award was proportionate and reasonable given the circumstances.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court order that dismissed his appeal of a Property Standards Order and an Order to Comply requiring him to remove structures and debris from his property.

The Divisional Court held it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the Property Standards Order, as the lower court's decision was final under the Building Code Act.

The court dismissed the appeal of the Order to Comply, rejecting the appellant's argument that a Crown Patent exempted his land from provincial and municipal regulation.

The applicants in CCAA proceedings sought an extension of the Stay Period to April 15, 2016, as they prepared an Amended and Restated Plan of Compromise.

The court found the parties were working in good faith and with due diligence, and granted the extension.

The court also approved an agreement to lift the Co-Tenancy Stay on acceptable terms and extended the Notice of Objection Bar Date.

The applicant, GuestLogix Inc., sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for a stay of proceedings, the appointment of a Monitor, and authorization for super-priority charges.

The court found the applicant to be an insolvent debtor company with over $5 million in unsecured liabilities, making it eligible for CCAA protection.

The court granted the stay and the requested Administration and Directors' Charges.

However, due to a potential conflict of interest raised by a secured creditor, the court declined to appoint the proposed Monitor, Deloitte Restructuring Inc., and instead appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for Target Canada Co. and related entities, the applicant brought an unopposed motion to establish a streamlined process for identifying and resolving common issues among pharmacist claims.

The court granted the motion, noting the benefit of an expeditious and efficient procedure to resolve such disputes, and approved the modified fee arrangements subject to court approval.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicant sought to add its highly integrated subsidiary, GuestLogix Ireland Limited, as an applicant to facilitate a comprehensive sale and investor solicitation process.

The applicant also sought approval for an Administration Charge, a Directors' Charge, and an Interim Lender's Charge to secure interim financing of up to US $3,000,000.

The court granted the unopposed motion, finding the addition of the subsidiary appropriate and the requested charges and financing necessary and reasonable under the CCAA.

The moving party, a former CFO of a company undergoing CCAA restructuring, sought a declaration that a court-approved settlement and release barred the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPAO) from commencing disciplinary proceedings against him.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the CPAO's regulatory proceedings regarding professional misconduct did not constitute a 'claim' under the CCAA, nor were they claims against him in his capacity as a director or officer.

Furthermore, the disciplinary proceedings did not fall within the definition of released claims in the settlement order, and the CPAO was not bound by the order as it had not received notice.

The Attorney General of Canada, at the request of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, applied for a winding-up order under the Winding-up and Restructuring Act in respect of the Canadian business of an authorized foreign bank.

The bank had admitted insolvency following the emergence of significant German tax claims and the imposition of a moratorium by German regulators.

The court found that the Superintendent had ample basis to take control of the bank's Canadian assets under the Bank Act.

Given the bank's admitted insolvency and the appointment of a German insolvency administrator, the court concluded it was just and equitable to grant the winding-up order and appoint a liquidator.

In the context of a receivership, representative counsel for the investors of Redstone Capital Corporation brought a motion for leave to deliver a new affidavit in an ongoing substantive consolidation hearing.

The hearing had already commenced and was adjourned pending this motion.

The court applied the test under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the proposed evidence, which detailed an individual investor's motivation for investing, was not relevant to the test for substantive consolidation.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings involving several related corporate applicants, the court considered a motion for approval of the professional fees and disbursements of the court-appointed monitor and its counsel.

The fees covered the period of the restructuring proceedings following the initial CCAA protection order.

The monitor reported that it had reviewed its counsel’s accounts and considered them fair and reasonable.

No party objected to the requested amounts, and secured noteholders with a direct financial interest did not oppose the requests.

The court approved the monitor’s and its counsel’s fees and disbursements as reasonable in the circumstances.

In proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act arising from the insolvency of a payday lending enterprise, class members moved for approval of settlement administration measures related to consumer class action settlements.

The requested approvals included a settlement distribution protocol, notice plan, privacy and information management protocol, and appointment of a claims administrator.

A third‑party creditor that had purchased loan receivables from the debtor sought accommodation to assert an equitable set‑off against class members’ settlement recoveries.

The court held that the creditor’s claim lacked the close connection required for equitable set‑off and was effectively a prejudgment garnishment against settlement funds.

The administrative protocols were approved as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members.

The appellants appealed a decision.

At the hearing, an alleged conflict was raised.

The Divisional Court was unable to ascertain the facts respecting the alleged conflict on the record.

As a result, the appeal was adjourned to be heard on a later date with a newly constituted panel due to scheduling exigencies.

In CCAA proceedings involving a global settlement of securities class actions arising from the restructuring of a payday lending group, class counsel sought court approval of legal fees and disbursements payable from the settlement fund.

The requested fees represented approximately 25.29% of the settlement amount and were incurred on a contingency basis.

The court considered the risks undertaken, the success achieved, the terms of the retainer agreements, and the range of percentages approved in comparable class proceedings.

Despite objections from several entities claiming the fees were excessive, the court found the request fair and reasonable.

The court approved the fees, disbursements, and modest honoraria to representative plaintiffs.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Purchasers of the Applicants' Securities moved for approval of a settlement agreement and plan of allocation in the context of CCAA proceedings involving Cash Store Financial Services and related entities.

The settlement provided for a payment of $13,779,167 by the defendants to resolve allegations of false and misleading statements regarding financial results.

The court approved the settlement and the associated third-party releases, finding them fair, reasonable, and consistent with the purpose of the CCAA.

The motion to approve the plan of allocation was adjourned on consent.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending enterprise, class members in Ontario consumer class actions moved for approval of three settlement agreements forming part of a broader global resolution of litigation involving the debtor companies, their directors and officers, and related parties.

The settlements resolved certain class claims and partially resolved a third‑party lender claim, providing more than $10 million in recovery with potential participation in future litigation proceeds.

The court applied established settlement approval factors including likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel recommendations, absence of objections, and arm’s‑length negotiations.

The court concluded that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and the restructuring process.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending group, class counsel for Ontario consumer class actions sought court approval of contingency fees and disbursements following settlement of related class proceedings.

The settlements produced monetary recoveries exceeding $10 million for class members, with potential additional recovery from future litigation proceeds.

The court reviewed the reasonableness of the requested 25% contingency fee and disbursements using established factors including results achieved, litigation risk, and responsibility assumed by class counsel.

The motion was unopposed.

The court concluded the requested fees and disbursements were reasonable and approved the amounts.

In CCAA proceedings involving the liquidation of a national retail chain, the court considered a motion by the court-appointed monitor seeking approval of its reports and activities.

Certain landlord creditors opposed the request, arguing that broad approval could prejudice creditor rights and improperly create issue estoppel or res judicata effects in future disputes.

The court held that while approval of monitor activities serves useful procedural and policy purposes in CCAA proceedings, caution is required where approval is sought in a general sense without full fact-finding.

The court approved the monitor’s reports but limited the effect of the approval so that only the monitor, in its personal capacity and regarding its own potential liability, could rely on the approval.

This approach balanced protection for the monitor with preservation of creditor rights.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the respondent's claim under Rule 21.

The respondent had pleaded the common employer doctrine against a group of corporate defendants and their operator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the application of the common employer doctrine to operators of a group of common employers is a developing area of law, and it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail.

The court also found the claim was pleaded with sufficient particularity.

The appellant appealed an order varying an assessment officer's report regarding legal fees.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the assessment officer provided only conclusory reasons for reducing the respondent's hourly rates and had no evidentiary basis for disallowing the cost of two lawyers appearing in court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,000.

The applicant, a 76-year-old family physician, sought judicial review of an order by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Quality Assurance Committee requiring him to practice under clinical supervision.

The order followed peer assessments that identified critical deficiencies in his practice posing an immediate risk to patient safety.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he did not receive a copy of the final review before the Committee's initial letter, and that the Committee failed to consider his responses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness when the process was viewed as a whole, and concluding that the Committee had properly considered the applicant's submissions.