Gina P. Rhodes

The applicants, five community futures organizations, sought the appointment of MNP Ltd. as receiver over Future Health Technologies Inc. (FHT) under section 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

FHT provides technology and technical support for the Community Paramedicine Remote Patient Monitoring Program (CPRPM), which delivers free tele-home monitoring services to approximately 1,500 chronically ill patients in rural Ontario.

The respondent, 2804476 Ontario Inc., opposed the application, arguing the receivership was a scheme to seize control of disputed intellectual property.

The court found that FHT was insolvent, that the appointment of a receiver was necessary to preserve critical healthcare services, and that the applicants held valid secured debt.

The court appointed the receiver and granted a stay of proceedings in related litigation, while confirming that the receiver would not take possession of disputed intellectual property without further court order.

The applicant, Mitsubishi HC Capital Canada Inc., sought the appointment of a receiver over the property of the respondent, Ribs Transport Inc., following defaults under a credit agreement and two settlement agreements.

The court found that a subsequent settlement agreement (the "Second Settlement Agreement") was binding and that Ribs had substantially complied with its terms, including making significant payments and arranging a required meeting, albeit late.

The court declined to appoint a receiver, holding that such an appointment was not just or convenient in the circumstances, and adjourned the application sine die, returnable on notice if the settlement was breached.

The defendants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the plaintiff from enforcing its mortgage security by way of power of sale, pending the resolution of their counterclaim alleging misrepresentation.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding alleged misrepresentation, the defendants failed to establish irreparable harm, as any losses could be compensated by damages.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses two motions arising from a cybertheft of approximately $9.7 million from the applicant's bank account at the respondent bank.

The applicant, FACTOR, sought additional productions from the Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS), alleging a parsimonious approach to disclosure.

BNS, supported by other respondents, sought to convert the application into an action, citing material facts in dispute and complex issues.

The court largely granted FACTOR's production requests, ordering BNS to provide more details from its internal investigation, session logs (with confidentiality), and internal alert system details (with a secure mechanism).

The court also ordered the additional respondents, James Campagna and 10426377 Canada Inc., to produce all relevant documents.

The motion to convert the application to an action was dismissed as premature, with the court noting that the necessity of conversion could be revisited once the respondents deliver their full evidence.

The applicant, a mortgagee, sought the appointment of a receiver over the respondents' real property due to mortgage defaults and alleged insolvency.

The respondents opposed, arguing the remedy was not just or convenient and that the proposed receiver had a conflict of interest due to an existing receivership over adjacent lands with related easement disputes.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's security was protected, there was no evidence of property depreciation, and the applicant had not pursued existing mortgage enforcement proceedings.

The court also noted that appointing the same firm as receiver for both properties would create a conflict given the ongoing disputes regarding a shared easement.

A former solicitor moved for a charging order under s. 34 of the Solicitors Act over a $70,000 cost award made in favour of his former client, AssessNet Inc. The client argued the solicitor was not "instrumental" in recovering the funds due to alleged negligence and that the retainer agreement precluded payment.

The court found the solicitor's efforts were sufficiently instrumental, noting that allegations of negligence are not appropriate for a charging order application.

The court granted the charging order, directing the funds to be held in trust pending a final assessment of the solicitor's fees.

The applicants, a group of companies under CCAA protection, brought a motion seeking court approval for an Exclusive Sales Listing Agreement, an Auction Services Agreement, and a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) with a priority charge.

They also requested an extension of the stay of proceedings from June 2, 2023, to October 31, 2023, to facilitate an orderly wind-down of the business.

The motion was unopposed, and both the Monitor and the DIP Lender supported the requested relief.

The court found all requested relief appropriate and granted the motion.

The applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought an amended and restated initial order to extend the stay of proceedings, increase authorized borrowings under the DIP Term Sheet, and increase the Administration and Directors' Charges.

They also sought approval for an asset sale transaction (Pinnrz Transaction).

The Monitor supported the relief, and no party opposed.

The court granted all requested relief, finding the extension reasonable, the increased borrowings justified under CCAA s. 11.2(4), the increased charges approved under CCAA ss. 11.51 and 11.52, and the sale transaction approved under CCAA s. 36(3) and the Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp. test.

The Phoena Group, a cannabis producer and distributor, applied for an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to insolvency and a severe liquidity crisis.

The application sought a stay of proceedings, appointment of Ernst & Young Inc. as Monitor, appointment of Darren Karasiuk as Chief Restructuring Advisor, and approval of an Administration Charge, DIP financing with a related charge, and a Directors' Charge.

The court granted all requested relief, finding the applicants met the criteria as "debtor companies" under the CCAA and that the proposed measures were necessary for an orderly wind-down and liquidation of assets in the best interests of stakeholders.

The applicants initiated a proceeding by application seeking declarations and substantial damages related to an anaerobic digester, and subsequently moved to add a party and for injunctive relief to prevent the digester's reactivation.

The court found the application procedurally inappropriate and outside its jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly due to the presence of material facts in dispute and the complex nature of the claims (nuisance and negligence).

Consequently, the court converted the application into an action, directing the applicants to file a Statement of Claim, and denied the immediate injunctive relief on the basis that it was not available in an improperly commenced application.

The appellant, 2088556 Ontario Inc., appealed a trial judgment that ordered specific performance and an abatement in favour of the respondent, M & M Homes Inc., regarding an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for commercial land.

The appellant had failed to provide required services by a specified deadline, leading to the respondent suing for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision on specific performance, the abatement, the discretionary dismissal of the appellant's motion to amend pleadings, and rejecting claims of bias and the appeal of full indemnity costs.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease termination provision, specifically whether proposed remodelling rendered continued possession by the tenant "impracticable." The motion judge had granted summary judgment to the landlord, finding the renovations bona fide and that the premises would cease to exist.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in construing the termination provision too narrowly and in isolation from other lease provisions, failing to consider whether the tenant could remain in possession during renovations.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment and costs order were set aside, and the action was remitted to the Superior Court for continuation.