Ian Eliot Aversa

The Court-Appointed Receiver brought a motion seeking to uphold the disallowance of a claim by Oscar Furtado against Go-To Stoney Creek Elfrida LP and Inc. for guarantee fees.

The Receiver argued the fees were undisclosed, related-party agreements made in breach of Furtado's fiduciary duties and were not reasonable or competitive.

The court found that Furtado, as a fiduciary, failed to provide full disclosure of the lucrative guarantee fee arrangement to investors, as it was not adequately disclosed in the limited partnership agreement, marketing brochure, or the auditor-withdrawn financial statements.

The Receiver's disallowance of the claim was upheld.

The applicant, FUNG-BC Holdings Ltd., sought a bankruptcy order against Gary Man Kin Ng based on two outstanding debts: a $4 million guarantee and a $5.194 million IIROC financial penalty.

Mr. Ng disputed the guarantee debt, arguing it was covered by a prior settlement agreement and covenant not to sue with Bridging Finance Inc., and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The court found the settlement documents unambiguously excluded the $4 million loan, and while the IIROC debt alone wouldn't suffice, it could be considered alongside the valid guarantee debt.

The court dismissed Mr. Ng's motion and granted the bankruptcy order, finding he had committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to meet significant liabilities.

The defendants, Facebook, Inc., Facebook Canada, Ltd., and Meta Platforms, Inc., brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's 336-paragraph, 46-page Statement of Claim.

The defendants argued the claim was frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, citing the plaintiff's history of similar lawsuits against tech companies.

The plaintiff, self-represented, denied a "litigation scheme" and argued his claims were valid.

The court, applying Rules 21.01 and 25.11, found the Statement of Claim to be overly broad, unspecific, and failing to plead material facts for various claims (e.g., facial recognition, data mining, discrimination, security breaches, private messages, data selling, scams, location data, copyright, gambling, privacy, illicit databases, trespass, conversion, competition law, consumer protection, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment).

The court struck the entire Statement of Claim but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, emphasizing the need for conciseness and material facts.

The court declined to admit evidence of other claims to prove an abuse of process, stating it would turn the motion into an evidentiary disposition.

The Superior Court of Justice considered a motion by BCIMC and Otera Capital to approve a Sale and Investor Solicitation Process (SISP) for three condominium projects (Yorkville, Clover, Halo) under receivership.

The court approved the SISP for the Yorkville project.

For the Clover project, the court declined to approve the SISP, affirming the debtor's right of redemption after Concord Land Developments acquired the debtor's shares and offered to pay out all BCIMC debt and receivership costs.

For the Halo project, the SISP was approved, but without a stalking horse bid and without restrictions on communication between bidders and stakeholders, as the debtor was not yet able to pay out the debt.

This proceeding involved competing applications for the appointment of a receiver and manager under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, and an application for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The applicants, secured creditors, sought receivership over three residential condominium projects (The Clover, Halo, and 33 Yorkville) due to significant financial irregularities, lack of transparency, and loss of confidence in the debtors' management.

The debtors opposed receivership and sought CCAA protection, proposing a share sale to Concord Group Developments and a plan to disclaim existing purchase agreements.

The court dismissed the CCAA application and granted the receivership application, finding that receivership was the preferable route.

The court emphasized the secured creditors' blocking position, the absence of a concrete CCAA plan, and the debtors' deliberate financial misconduct, which outweighed any potential benefits of a CCAA proceeding.

The City of Sault Ste.

Marie moved for immediate payment of Essar Steel Algoma Inc.'s outstanding and future post-filing property tax obligations, totaling approximately $10.8 million post-filing.

The court considered Algoma's precarious financial position, volatility of steel prices, and upcoming capital expenditures, including a significant blast furnace stove replacement.

While dismissing the City's motion for immediate payment of arrears, the court ordered Algoma to pay $350,000 per month for ongoing property taxes, acknowledging the City's difficulties and Algoma's assessment appeal.

The Superintendent of Financial Services initiated proceedings leading to the appointment of Grant Thornton Limited as trustee for several trustee corporations holding syndicated mortgage investments.

The trustee brought a motion seeking the appointment of KSV Kofman Inc. as receiver for six insolvent entities, an order for Mr. Davies to deliver documents, an injunction against Mr. Dennis Jewitt from communicating with investors (except for one project), approval of trustee fees, and costs against Mr. Jewitt.

The court granted the receiver appointment, the document delivery order, and awarded costs of $10,000 against Mr. Jewitt for vexatious conduct.

The request for an injunction against Mr. Jewitt was denied at this stage, with the court noting it could be revisited if his conduct continued to cause concrete impacts.

GIP Primus, L.P. and Brightwood Loan Services LLC ("GIP"), along with Portco, brought motions seeking orders for Essar Steel Algoma Inc. ("Algoma") to resume payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement, including arrears, and for a priority charge in the alternative.

The motions were based on section 11.01(a) of the CCAA, arguing that Portco provided critical services or licensed property.

The court dismissed the motions, reiterating previous findings that Portco did not provide services or a license, and that the arguments were previously decided.

The court also declined to grant a critical supplier charge under section 11.4 or the general discretion of section 11 of the CCAA, citing lack of application by the debtor, prior rulings, and potential breach of DIP loan terms and prejudice to other creditors.

The Receiver brought a motion seeking a determination on whether the estates of Redstone Investment Corporation (RIC), Redstone Capital Corporation (RCC), and 1710814 Ontario Inc. o/a Redstone Management Services (RMS) should be substantively consolidated.

RIC and RMS Investors argued for consolidation, while RCC Investors opposed it, citing a General Security Agreement (GSA) granting RCC priority over RIC's assets.

The court found the founder's (Mr. So) evidence unreliable and dismissed subjective investor state of mind as irrelevant to the consolidation analysis.

Applying the Northland factors, the court determined that the elements of consolidation were not present, as assets were segregable, financial statements were separate, and significant prejudice would result to RCC Investors if consolidation were ordered.

The motion for substantive consolidation was denied.

The applicants sought approval under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act for a sale of substantially all of their assets following a court‑approved sales and investor solicitation process.

The court considered the statutory factors in s. 36 of the CCAA, including the fairness and reasonableness of the process, the role of the monitor, consultation with creditors, and the adequacy of the consideration.

A late competing bid was rejected to preserve the integrity of the court‑approved sales process.

The court also addressed priority issues involving a DIP lender, secured creditors, and potential claims to HST refunds under the Financial Administration Act.

The proposed transaction and distribution scheme were approved as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought an extension of the stay of proceedings and an increase to the debtor-in-possession lending facility.

The court considered the applicants’ liquidity position, workforce reductions, revised cash-flow forecasts, and the monitor’s report supporting the request.

The court found the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence and that extending the stay would permit implementation of an expedited sale and investor solicitation process aimed at preserving the business as a going concern.

The court approved an increase of the DIP facility to $5.35 million and amendments to the loan agreement, but declined to include $650,000 in accrued lender fees within the facility at that stage due to insufficient review.

The stay of proceedings was extended to allow the restructuring process to continue.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought an extension of the stay of proceedings, an increase in debtor-in-possession financing, amendments to a key employee retention plan, and a sealing order.

The court considered the applicants’ efforts to secure additional interim financing and their progress toward a potential long-term supply contract that could enable further investment or restructuring.

Applying the statutory factors under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the court approved an increase in the DIP lending facility and granted the requested stay extension.

The court also approved a minor salary reallocation to retain essential non-management employees and ordered that confidential employee-related schedules be sealed.

Two affiliated technology companies applied for initial protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act after exhausting start-up capital and becoming unable to meet payroll and other obligations.

The applicants sought a stay of proceedings, approval of debtor-in-possession financing, and priority charges for administration expenses and directors’ and officers’ liabilities.

The court held that the companies qualified as debtor companies under the CCAA and that they were appropriately treated as affiliated entities for the purpose of the proceedings.

The court approved the requested stay, DIP facility and related charges, finding them reasonable and necessary to allow time for restructuring or a going-concern sale for the benefit of stakeholders.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings involving a retail apparel company, the monitor sought approval of an asset sale agreement for the debtor’s Costa Blanca business and the debtor sought an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The court considered the criteria under ss. 36(3) and (4) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and found the sale process had been conducted fairly and transparently and that the proposed transaction provided the best available consideration to creditors, notwithstanding that the purchaser was related to the debtor.

Approval of the sale was granted subject to a condition requiring the transaction to close by a specified deadline, failing which the debtor and monitor were required to seek further court directions.

The court also granted the debtor’s request to extend the stay of proceedings, approve liquidation of certain store inventory and fixtures, continue a key employee retention plan, and authorize repayment of secured loans.

A secured creditor applied for the appointment of a receiver over a debtor real estate holding company under s. 243(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent argued that the appointment of a receiver should not proceed by application and that ordinary remedies were available.

The court held that the governing legislation expressly contemplates appointment by application and that such an order constitutes a final order determining the issues raised.

Given the debtor’s continuing default, the enforceability of the creditor’s security, and the lack of an operating business, the court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver.