George Benchetrit

The applicant Trustee in Bankruptcy sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully holding the respondents liable for $16 million in transfers at undervalue.

The court found that the respondents engaged in reprehensible litigation conduct by failing to make financial disclosure and swearing to a fiction regarding the transfers.

The court rejected the argument of one respondent that she should pay a smaller portion, finding she acted in concert with her siblings.

The court fixed costs at $500,000 all-inclusive on a substantial indemnity basis, payable jointly and severally by all respondents.

The Trustee in bankruptcy applied to set aside transfers of approximately $16.2 million from bankrupt borrower corporations to related non-borrower corporations under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the transfers were made at undervalue, rendered the bankrupts insolvent, and were made with the intent to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors.

The court rejected the respondents' unsupported claims that the transfers were prepayments of future joint venture profits.

Judgment was granted declaring the transfers void and holding the recipient corporations and the individual controlling siblings jointly and severally liable as privies to the transfers.

The applicant, founder of a carpentry business, sought an oppression remedy against the respondent, the younger active manager and 49% shareholder.

The parties had entered into a unanimous shareholders' agreement to transition the business to the respondent while completing existing projects.

The respondent breached the agreement and his fiduciary duties by usurping the company's employees for his new competing business, failing to maintain proper financial records, and causing the original company to fail.

The court found the respondent liable for oppression and ordered him and his new company to jointly and severally disgorge $2,248,328 in profits.

The applicants, QM GP Inc. and Highpoint Environmental Services Inc., sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and a lien regularization order.

The applicants sought protection to address acute liquidity crisis, interim financing, and relief to stabilize operations.

The court granted the initial order with certain modifications, approving interim debtor-in-possession financing, appointment of a monitor, administration and directors' charges, and a lien regularization order.

The court also granted a temporary stay on performance bond calls and certain indemnity obligations, with the Kingsdale Letter of Credit issue deferred to the comeback hearing.

The decision addresses two competing motions for the appointment of representative counsel for investors in a receivership proceeding involving Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court reviews the procedural background, the need for representative counsel, and the competing proposals from Aird & Berlis LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

The court ultimately appoints Aird & Berlis LLP as representative counsel, finding their approach and fee structure preferable for efficiency, transparency, and certainty.

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

The court granted a bankruptcy order against Thomas Dylan Suitor, finding that the applicant, The Fuller Landau Group Inc. (as Receiver of The Lion’s Share Group Inc.), established the necessary statutory requirements under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that Mr. Suitor was personally liable under promissory notes as both borrower and guarantor, that he owed debts exceeding $1,000, and that he had ceased to meet his liabilities generally as they became due.

The court also found the existence of multiple creditors and/or special circumstances justifying the order, and declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the order.

This endorsement grants a brief adjournment in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities, following ongoing discussions between the applicants and stakeholders.

The court extends the stay of proceedings, increases the Directors’ Charge, amends the relative priorities of charges, and approves the engagement of Reflect Advisors, LLC as financial advisor.

The court finds the requested relief appropriate, unopposed, and supported by the Monitor, and orders the requested amendments to the Initial Order.

This endorsement grants the Court-appointed Monitor’s motion for approval of a credit bid process and orderly liquidation plan in the CCAA proceedings of Balboa Inc. and related applicants.

The Court approves the sale agreements, a secondary credit bid process for remaining properties, and an orderly liquidation plan, as well as the Monitor’s reports, activities, and fees.

The stay of proceedings is extended to May 31, 2025.

The decision details the mechanics of the credit bid process, the rationale for the relief, and the Court’s satisfaction that the process is appropriate and fair in the circumstances.

This endorsement concerns a motion by FAAN Mortgage Administrators Inc., as Court-appointed Trustee of Building & Development Mortgages Canada Inc. (BDMC), for approval of its 30th and 31st Reports, its fees and disbursements, a sealing order for certain confidential exhibits, and authorization to distribute the Fortress Holdback and Future Fortress Amounts to investors.

The motion was unopposed.

The court approved the Trustee’s activities and fees, granted the sealing order, and authorized the distribution to investors, finding these steps appropriate and necessary to protect investor interests and confidential information.

The proposed plaintiff, Frank Losak, sought leave to commence a class proceeding against the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) and its CEO, Mark White, alleging misrepresentations related to the sale of Pace Savings & Credit Union securities while Pace was under FSRA's administration.

The court determined that leave was required under the Liquidation Order.

It granted leave for the claim against FSRA, finding a viable cause of action not barred by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act or the Limitations Act, and that it would not undermine the liquidation.

However, leave was denied for the claim against Mark White due to statutory immunity under the FSRA Act, as no particulars of bad faith were provided.

The statement of claim against FSRA was allowed to be issued nunc pro tunc to February 28, 2024.

The appellant, 2557904 Ontario Inc. (the stalking horse bidder), appealed a motion judge's order that dismissed the receiver's motion for an approval and vesting order (AVO) and instead approved the debtor's (1000093910 Ontario Inc.) motion to redeem a first mortgage.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by not ensuring 255 received compensation for costs thrown away and by granting provisional enforcement of the order after an appeal notice was filed.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the order to require the debtor to pay $300,000 in compensation to 255 and setting aside the provisional execution.

The court also ordered that if the refinancing transaction does not close, the AVO for 255 will be granted.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Maxx Properties (No. 323) Ltd. and Blake Larsen, due to multiple defaults under credit and forbearance agreements.

The debtor admitted default but requested a brief extension, citing a pending transaction.

The court granted the receiver appointment, finding that the debtor had repeatedly defaulted on obligations, failed to comply with forbearance terms, and provided insufficient evidence of the proposed transaction's viability.

The court emphasized the erosion of RBC's security and the debtor's non-compliance.

The plaintiffs, first-position mortgagees, moved for the appointment of a receiver over a property where the debtors had abandoned a gas station and convenience store business.

The loan had matured, and the property was found abandoned with inventory stripped.

While some subsequent mortgagees opposed, arguing for a direct sale or limited investigative receivership to minimize costs, the court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver.

The court emphasized the contractual right to appoint a receiver, the abandonment of the property, and the need to preserve assets and explore a going concern sale.

The motion was granted, and Rosen Goldberg Inc. was appointed as receiver with full powers.

In the receivership of the Stateview entities, Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion seeking declaratory relief on behalf of purchasers who had paid deposits for pre-construction homes.

Tarion argued that the deposits were subject to an express or constructive trust and sought a remedial constructive trust to elevate the purchasers' priority.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the purchasers had contractually subordinated their interests to secured lenders.

While an express trust existed for contracts with early termination provisions, the funds were not segregated.

The court declined to impose a remedial constructive trust, as doing so would improperly upset the priority scheme under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

This motion concerned the priority of new home purchasers' deposits in the bankruptcy of residential real estate developers (Stateview entities).

Tarion Warranty Corporation sought declaratory relief, arguing that the deposits were subject to express or constructive trusts due to unjust enrichment, which would elevate purchasers' claims.

The court dismissed Tarion's motion, finding that purchasers' agreements contained subordination clauses giving priority to secured lenders.

The court also determined that while express trusts existed for some purchasers with early termination provisions, these were not statutory deemed trusts.

Furthermore, there was no unjust enrichment for purchasers without express trusts, as the operation of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act constituted a juristic reason.

The court declined to impose a remedial constructive trust, emphasizing the high bar for such remedies in insolvency proceedings and the lack of a close causal connection between the deposits and the real property proceeds.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.