Gordon Kugler

This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.

The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.

The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.

These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.

The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.

In a medical negligence appeal, the central issue was whether a trier of fact must draw an adverse inference of causation when physicians’ fault made proof of causation more difficult and the plaintiff adduced some affirmative causation evidence.

The majority held that under Quebec civil law, any such inference is a permissive presumption of fact under art. 2849 C.C.Q., not a mandatory rule, and the burden of proving causation on a balance of probabilities remains with the plaintiff.

The Court further held appellate intervention required deference to factual findings absent palpable and overriding error, and restored the trial judgment that causation was not proven.

The appeal was allowed, with a dissent that would have upheld appellate intervention on factual-error grounds.