J. Dietrich

The court-appointed Monitor in a CCAA proceeding brought a motion to approve a third amendment to a DIP credit facility to allow the debtor to contribute required equity to a real estate development project.

The Foreign Representative raised concerns about the lender's conduct and lack of information, but the Monitor recommended approval as there were no alternative funding options and the lender agreed to reduce the maximum charge and set a short maturity date.

The court approved the amendment, noting it was necessary to preserve the project and that outstanding issues could be addressed prior to maturity.

In a receivership arising from concurrent CCAA proceedings, the moving party sought to vary a prior receivership order to change the allocation of sale proceeds from certain properties.

The dispute concerned whether surplus proceeds should be applied first to a cross‑collateralized mortgage held by a secured lender or to higher‑interest receiver borrowings incurred for other properties.

The court held that the original order did not finally determine the allocation of proceeds and that new facts concerning the timing and financing of property sales had arisen.

Applying Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the commercial reasonableness requirement under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court concluded that applying lower‑interest debt before higher‑interest borrowing costs was not commercially reasonable.

The receivership order was amended to prioritize repayment of the receiver’s other borrowings before the lender’s blanket mortgage.

A hog supplier sought an order terminating the 30‑day period for an insolvent company to file a proposal under s. 50.4(11) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or, alternatively, the appointment of a receiver over the debtor’s inventory under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party argued the debtor acted in bad faith by accepting livestock deliveries shortly before filing a notice of intention to make a proposal and that creditors would be prejudiced because farmers would otherwise be unable to claim the statutory priority for agricultural suppliers under BIA s. 81.2.

The court held the evidence did not establish lack of good faith, inability to make a viable proposal, inability to obtain creditor approval, or material prejudice to creditors as a whole.

The court further held it would be inappropriate to appoint a receiver solely to trigger the statutory farmer priority scheme where Parliament had chosen not to extend that priority to NOI proceedings.

The applicant, a secured creditor owed approximately $36 million, applied for the appointment of a receiver over the debtors' four retirement residences and for the approval of a pre-packaged credit bid sale.

After a prolonged but unsuccessful marketing process, the applicant proposed to acquire the assets for an amount equivalent to the indebtedness.

The court found the appointment of a receiver necessary to maintain the residences as going concerns and approved the sale, finding the credit bid reasonable based on independent appraisals.

The applicants, a group of companies owned by Dondeb Inc., sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to enable an orderly liquidation of their assets.

The application was opposed by approximately 75% of the secured creditors, who argued for individual receiverships due to a lack of confidence in the applicants' principal and the burden of CCAA administrative costs.

The court dismissed the CCAA application, finding it unlikely that a successful plan could be developed and approved by the creditors.

Instead, the court issued a Global Receivership Order, which was supported by the opposing creditors, to achieve an orderly liquidation at a lower cost.

The applicants, comprising the First Leaside group of companies, sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to conduct an orderly wind-down of their operations.

The court found that the applicants, viewed as a group, were insolvent and that the CCAA could be appropriately used for a liquidating proceeding.

The court also granted super-priority Administration and D&O Charges, dismissing arguments from secured creditors that provincial paramountcy issues precluded such priorities without further notice.