Jamie Arabi

The applicants, a group of real estate development entities (Ashcroft Homes Group), sought to extend an initial Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) stay of proceedings to facilitate a restructuring.

Secured creditors, representing 84% of the total secured debt, opposed the extension and instead moved for the appointment of interim receivers.

The court found the applicants' restructuring plan lacked substance, noted a significant loss of confidence in management due to past conduct and outdated property valuations, and determined that the collaborative receivership approach proposed by the majority of secured creditors was more appropriate.

The motion to extend the CCAA stay was dismissed, and the motions for the appointment of receivers were granted.

The plaintiff, Kaboom Fireworks Inc., brought a motion to compel several defendants (Vulcan Fireworks International Inc., Joseph Wan, Mystical Distributing Company Ltd., and Mystical Distributing International Ltd.) to answer undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The action concerns an alleged breach of an Exclusive Supply Agreement.

The court addressed various categories of refusals and undertakings, largely finding the questions relevant to the pleadings, particularly regarding the relationships between defendant entities, damage calculations, and the sale of Vulcan.

Most outstanding discovery obligations were ordered to be answered, with some resolved by consent or adjourned.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs, who successfully resisted the anti-SLAPP motion, sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs, finding "compelling facts" to justify the award, including the significant reputational harm caused by the defendants' malicious and widely broadcast statements, particularly to a professional lobbyist.

The decision emphasized the need to deter meritless anti-SLAPP motions and fixed costs at $50,000, aligning with the Court of Appeal's suggested ceiling.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a libel action initiated by the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued the action aimed to stifle their public interest discussions on vaccine passports, Christian influence in government, and political lobbying.

The plaintiffs contended the defendants' expressions were false and defamatory.

The court applied the anti-SLAPP test, finding that the plaintiffs' claim had substantial merit and the defendants had no valid defense (rejecting defenses of truth, repetition, fair comment, and responsible communication).

The court also determined that the harm suffered by the plaintiffs was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was dismissed, allowing the libel action to proceed.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitral award under s. 46(1)(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing the arbitrator treated them unfairly by refusing to allow an amendment to their statement of defence to plead negligent misrepresentation shortly before the peremptory hearing.

The respondent cross-applied to enforce the award.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator acted within his authority and did not treat the applicants unfairly, as the late amendment would have required further discovery and evidence.

The respondent's cross-application to enforce the award was granted.