I. Aversa

The defendants were successful on a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety, with leave to amend.

The defendants sought costs of $41,979.61, relying on an offer to settle that would have allowed the plaintiff to amend his claim.

The self-represented plaintiff argued he was impecunious and that success was divided.

The court found the defendants were overwhelmingly successful and that the plaintiff's impecuniosity did not shield him from a costs award, though it was a factor in reducing the quantum.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 payable by the plaintiff.

In an insolvency proceeding involving syndicated mortgage investments, the court-appointed trustee brought a motion to dismiss a claim by an individual and his company for fees and a priority charge against the respondents' assets.

The claimant alleged he had an oral agreement to provide services to the Investors' Committee and sought approximately $103,000.

The court found no binding contract existed as the parties had not agreed on all material terms and the claimant had insisted on a signed agreement.

The court also rejected a quantum meruit claim, finding the claimant's services were provided gratuitously while pitching for a retainer.

Finally, the court held there was no basis under statute or inherent jurisdiction to grant a retroactive priority charge for the claimant's fees.

The claim was dismissed.

In an insolvency proceeding involving syndicated mortgage investments, a claimant sought approximately $103,000 in fees for services allegedly provided to the Investors' Committee, along with a court-ordered priority charge against the respondents' assets.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that no binding contract was ever formed as the parties had not agreed on all material terms and the claimant had insisted on a signed agreement.

The court also rejected a claim in quantum meruit, concluding the claimant provided services gratuitously while negotiating a retainer.

Finally, the court held there was no basis in its inherent jurisdiction to grant a retroactive priority charge for the claimant's fees.

Two related companies filed notices of intention to make proposals under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and sought administrative consolidation of their proceedings, approval of an administrative professionals’ charge, and authorization for the proposal trustee to act as foreign representative in Chapter 15 proceedings in the United States.

The court considered the integrated operations of the companies and the shared secured lender and held that administrative consolidation would promote efficient and cost‑effective management of the insolvency proceedings without merging the estates.

The court also approved a $250,000 administrative charge securing professional fees, noting compliance with statutory service requirements and the absence of opposition from the senior secured creditor.

Finally, the proposal trustee was authorized to act as foreign representative and seek recognition of the Canadian proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for Priszm, the landlord (Scott's REIT) brought a motion claiming entitlement to the proceeds from the sale and assignment of various restaurant leases to third-party purchasers.

Scott's argued it had a proprietary interest in the lease consideration and that the secured creditor (Prudential) had subordinated its security interest to Scott's claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lease provisions created only an unsecured contractual obligation, not a proprietary interest.

Furthermore, the court held that the leasehold charge consents did not contain clear and unequivocal language demonstrating an intention by Prudential to subordinate its first-priority security interest to Scott's unsecured claim.

The applicants moved under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act for an extension of the stay of proceedings until June 6, 2012.

A successful bid had been selected following a sale and investor solicitation process, and the extension was required to finalize the purchase agreement and seek court approval.

The court found that the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence, and granted the extension as the applicants had sufficient interim financing to proceed.