Ines Ferreira

In NOI proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the debtors sought approval of interim financing, a forbearance arrangement, a CRO engagement, an employee retention plan, court-ordered charges, a stalking horse SISP, administrative consolidation, a stay extension, and limited sealing relief.

The court held that the proposed restructuring steps were appropriate and supported by the proposal trustee, the secured lender, and the evidentiary record, and that the debtors required the DIP facility and sale process to preserve operations and maximize stakeholder recoveries.

The court also approved a customer accommodation agreement and related intellectual property transfer as value-maximizing transactions outside the ordinary course.

Applying the statutory extension criteria and the Sherman Estate sealing framework, the court extended the stay and sealed confidential employee compensation information.

The Applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought multiple orders, including approval for the sale of various real properties and shares, authorization for distributions to lenders, amendments to a Wind-Down Order to include new recourse lenders and clarify notice, amendments to a Lien Discharge Order to address possessory liens and insurance claims, and amendments to a Factoring Order.

The relief was unopposed and recommended by the Monitor and Chief Restructuring Officer.

The court granted all requested orders, finding that the transactions were in the best interests of stakeholders and that the court had jurisdiction under sections 11 and 36(3) of the CCAA, applying the Soundair Principles.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, National Bank of Canada moved to lift the stay of proceedings to appoint a receiver over four real estate properties for which it was the first-ranking mortgage lender.

The applicants and the Monitor opposed the appointment, arguing that the existing sales process under the Real Estate Protocol was functioning well and that appointing a new court officer would add unnecessary costs without significant benefit.

The court dismissed the motion to appoint a receiver, finding it was not just or convenient, but granted a Rent Enforcement Order allowing net rents to be paid to the moving party.

The court also granted a sealing order for the property appraisals to protect the integrity of the ongoing sales process.

The applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought approval for a revised Wind-Down Plan, a Liquidity Contribution Alternative and Turnover Order, a Stay Extension, and a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP).

The court approved the relief, finding the revised plan addressed previous concerns by allowing secured creditors (Recourse Lenders) the option to pay their pro rata share of the liquidity requirement to retrieve collateral, or for the applicants to sell inventory to fund the wind-down.

The court also found the KERP appropriate and necessary for an efficient wind-down and extended the stay of proceedings.

The Applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought a Funding Contribution and Turn-Over Order to compel various financiers to contribute to a $40 million wind-down cost, an extension of the stay period, and approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP).

The court declined the Funding Order and KERP, finding that CCAA section 11.01(b) prohibits compelling new money advances from stakeholders, and that securitization parties are differently situated with assets excluded from the debtor's property.

The court did grant a shorter extension of the stay of proceedings.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants sought a Funding Order to compel Securitization Parties and other secured lenders to fund a $40 million wind-down of the remaining entities.

The court dismissed the motion for the Funding Order, finding that section 11.01(b) of the CCAA expressly prohibits orders requiring the further advance of money or credit.

Consequently, the court also declined to approve a Key Employee Retention Plan, as it was dependent on the unavailable funding.

The court did, however, grant a temporary sealing order for the KERP details and extended the stay of proceedings to November 29, 2024.

This endorsement concerns a motion brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and its affiliates (the Applicants) under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a going concern transaction for Pride Group Logistics (PGL), a distinct business line.

The proposed purchasers included principals of the Applicants, leading the Court-appointed Monitor to undertake negotiations and carriage of the motion.

The Monitor, supported by the Applicants, their directors, employees, and some financiers (Daimler, Mitsubishi, Finloc, National Bank), recommended approval, arguing it offered a higher recovery than liquidation, preserved approximately 500 jobs, and avoided significant wind-down costs for the broader Pride Entities.

The transaction was opposed by certain secured lenders, including The Bank of Nova Scotia, The Lending Syndicate, TD Equipment Finance Canada, and RBC entities, who preferred a wind-down.

The court applied the factors under CCAA s. 36(3) and the Soundair Principles, finding the sale process reasonable, fair, and transparent.

The court concluded that the transaction was the only viable going concern option, superior to a wind-down, and consistent with the CCAA's purpose of avoiding social and economic losses from liquidation.

The PGL Going Concern Transaction was approved.

In the context of ongoing CCAA proceedings, the applicants and various equipment financiers reached an impasse regarding the wind-down plan and a proposed going-concern sale of the logistics business.

The applicants sought a monetization order, an increase in the administration charge, and lien regularization, which were unopposed and granted by the court to maintain operations.

Due to significant disputes over the sale and liquidation of assets, the court adjourned the contested motions, including several lift-stay motions brought by creditors, and ordered the parties to attend mandatory mediation before a former Commercial List judge.

The plaintiff, Wilderness North Air, was awarded a contract by Hydro One Remote Communities Inc. (Remotes) to be the primary vendor for the delivery of diesel fuel by air to five remote First Nations communities.

After the contract was awarded, several First Nations communities issued Band Council Resolutions (BCRs) stating they would only accept fuel delivered by Wasaya Airways, a First Nations-owned airline that had been unsuccessful in the bidding process.

Remotes subsequently cancelled Wilderness's purchase orders for four of the communities and awarded the work to Wasaya and another carrier.

Wilderness sued Remotes for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith, and sued Wasaya for inducing breach of contract.

The Superior Court of Justice found that Remotes breached the contract and its duty of good faith, and that Wasaya induced the breach.

Wilderness was awarded $2,718,988 in damages, with Wasaya jointly and severally liable for $856,458.

The applicants, Pride Group Holdings Inc. et al., sought several orders under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), including a Turn-Over Order for securitized assets, allocation of Monitor's review costs, and approval and vesting orders for two properties (Cornwall and Abbotsford) and a factoring portfolio.

The approval and vesting relief for the properties and factoring portfolio were unopposed.

The Turn-Over Order was resolved through negotiations and presented to the court on consent.

The court-appointed Monitor recommended all sought relief.

The court granted all requested orders, finding them appropriate and within its jurisdiction under section 11 of the CCAA, noting the Monitor's scrutiny and the benefit to stakeholders.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants sought three orders: approval of a factoring portfolio purchase agreement, approval for distribution of proceeds from a property sale, and permission for a creditor to sell certain vehicles.

The court approved the distribution of Chehalis property proceeds to Roynat.

For the Regions vehicles, the court granted the order allowing Regions to take possession, setting a 30-day retrieval period and approving storage costs of $35/day.

The motion for approval of the JD Factors Purchase Agreement was adjourned to a later date, as Mitsubishi HC Capital Canada Inc. objected, claiming ownership of the receivables and requiring more time to prepare its position.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Carey J. dated May 1, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, the moving parties were ordered to pay the responding party's costs fixed at $3,000.

The plaintiff, Leanne Briscoe, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, 9327959 Canada Inc. and Stephan Yaworski, seeking repayment of a $150,000 loan.

The loan was evidenced by a promissory note that stipulated repayment by December 4, 2021, or upon the sale of a property, whichever occurred earlier, plus interest.

The property was not sold by the deadline, triggering the repayment clause.

The defendants argued the note was unenforceable due to a lack of consensus ad idem, adverse market conditions, and the rights of prior lenders, claiming verbal agreements supplemented the written terms.

The court found the promissory note clear and unambiguous, and that the defendants failed to provide specific, coherent evidence to support their claims, relying instead on bald allegations.

Exercising its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $195,000 plus pre-judgment interest.

This decision provides supplementary reasons following a motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

The court addresses an improper communication from the unsuccessful parties' counsel questioning the evidentiary basis of the prior decision, specifically regarding a mortgage on the subject property.

The court clarifies that direct communication with the court without prior consent or direction is a breach of Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also confirms that the title abstract showing the mortgage was part of the evidentiary record and that its presence or absence does not alter the original assessment of equities or the decision.

The plaintiff, Katherine Lee, brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property, alleging a one-half beneficial interest that was fraudulently conveyed by her father, Yunchang Li, to himself and her elder sister, Yahong Li.

The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of fraud, citing several "badges of fraud" including the transfer occurring without notice, nominal consideration, and a non-arm's length relationship.

The court also determined there was a high probability of success for the plaintiff's claim and that the equities favored granting the CPL, as damages would not be an adequate remedy.

The motion for CPL was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, with a reduction due to the plaintiff's procedural error in under-booking the initial motion hearing.

Hydro One Networks Inc. appealed a decision denying its claim for a permanent prescriptive easement over a road on the respondent's land, which provides access to its transmission lines.

The application judge had found Hydro One's use was not "as of right" or "continuous." The Court of Appeal found that the application judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the frequency and nature of Hydro One's use, which was sufficient to meet the "continuous" requirement.

The Court also determined that Hydro One's post-2008 interactions with the respondent, aimed at accommodation, did not negate the "as of right" character of its use established prior to the land's registration under the Land Titles Act in 2008.

The appeal was allowed, and the prescriptive easement was declared.

The plaintiff, a distributor of lighting retrofit kits, sued the defendant local distribution company for over $20 million in damages after its business failed.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently delayed and suspended approvals for customer rebates under a provincial energy conservation program, raising unfounded safety concerns.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, as the rebate program was exclusively for the benefit of customers.

Furthermore, the court found that the defendant's safety concerns were legitimate, the processing times were not unreasonable, and the plaintiff's financial collapse was caused by internal disputes, loss of inventory, and withdrawal of bank financing rather than the defendant's actions.

Claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and misfeasance in public office were also dismissed.