Jeffrey Levine

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 sought court approval for a proposed $500,000 settlement of a securities class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations by a cannabis company.

The court declined to approve the settlement, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove it was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court cited concerns over the gross disparity between the Canadian settlement and a $2.9 million USD settlement in a parallel US proceeding, the lack of evidence regarding estimated class size and recovery per member, and unexplained issues regarding insurance coverage.

The moving parties sought advice and directions regarding a previous order that set aside a corporate reorganization for breaching a share pledge agreement.

The responding parties argued the previous order did not apply to a specific entity, Hay Bay Solar LP, because it was not explicitly named.

The court interpreted the previous order broadly, finding that the reorganization was a single integrated transaction and the order set it aside in its entirety, including Hay Bay.

The court also found that issue estoppel would prevent relitigating the ownership of Hay Bay.

The applicant tenant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent landlord from terminating its commercial lease and evicting it.

The landlord issued a notice of default claiming unpaid rent and taxes, but the court found the alleged arrears were entirely due to the landlord's own billing and clerical errors.

The landlord alternatively argued it could terminate the lease without default by compensating the tenant in damages, relying on contract law principles.

The court rejected this argument, holding that a commercial lease grants a possessory property right that cannot be unilaterally expropriated by the landlord.

The notices of default and termination were declared null and void, and the landlord was enjoined from terminating the lease.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for the production of documents prior to a leave motion under the Securities Act, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the corporate defendant and one individual defendant.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the other individual defendant, finding that the plaintiff's conduct in pursuing the motion against him and making unfounded allegations of deliberate misconduct was unreasonable and warranted sanction.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay a total of $36,603.87 in costs.

The plaintiff in a putative class action for secondary market misrepresentation brought a motion for the production of documents referenced in the defendants' affidavits prior to serving his reply record.

Alternatively, the plaintiff sought to strike the portions of the affidavits referencing those documents.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the plaintiff has no right to documentary discovery at the leave stage under section 138.8 of the Securities Act, and that the proper mechanism for production is through cross-examination after the reply is served.

The court also declined to strike the affidavits, noting that hearsay is permitted on motions.

The plaintiff security company brought a Simplified Procedure action against the defendants for unpaid standby security services provided during a potential labour strike at the Sheraton hotel.

The court found that a contract was formed based on email exchanges between the parties and that the plaintiff performed the standby services.

The court awarded the plaintiff $32,950.80 in damages for the unpaid invoice.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for punitive damages, personal liability against the individual defendant, and the tort of deceit, finding insufficient evidence of dishonesty or an independent actionable wrong.

Following a successful application regarding a restructuring support agreement, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of approximately $1.18 million based on a contractual covenant.

The respondents argued for partial indemnity costs.

The court held that while the contractual provision for full indemnity was an important factor, it did not override the court's discretion to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable.

Finding the hours docketed by the applicants' counsel excessive for a one-issue case, the court awarded a global all-inclusive costs amount of $800,000.

The applicants sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of the 'Outside Date' in a restructuring support agreement.

The respondent, a cannabis company, argued that any extension of the Outside Date required its initiation or consent.

The court found that the plain and ordinary meaning of the agreement allowed the lenders to automatically extend the Outside Date upon their written consent, acting reasonably, without the need for the respondent's consent.

The court granted the declaration sought by the applicants.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Monitor appealed a Claims Officer's decision allowing a landlord's claim for liquidated damages under a lease guarantee.

The Monitor argued the Claims Officer failed to consider a lease provision regarding the sale of the property.

The landlord cross-appealed the Claims Officer's finding that it breached a duty to be forthright by failing to disclose the property's foreclosure.

The Superior Court granted the Monitor's appeal, remitting the quantification issue back to the Claims Officer due to an error of law in contractual interpretation.

The court dismissed the landlord's cross-appeal, affirming that creditors owe a duty of forthrightness in a CCAA claims process.

The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendant’s statement of defence for failure to pay a prior $12,500 costs award arising from a motion to lift the bankruptcy stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The defendant had declared bankruptcy before the costs order was made and argued the costs constituted a provable claim in bankruptcy rather than a personal post‑bankruptcy liability.

The court considered Rule 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the distinction in bankruptcy law between plaintiff’s and defendant’s costs.

Applying the jurisprudence flowing from Re British Gold Fields of West Africa Ltd., the court held the costs were provable in bankruptcy and did not create a personal post‑bankruptcy obligation absent a later fraud finding under s. 178 of the BIA.

The motion to strike the defence was dismissed.

A corporation sought court approval of a statutory plan of arrangement under s. 182 of the Business Corporations Act involving the acquisition of its shares by another mining corporation through an exchange of securities.

The court applied the framework established in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, requiring satisfaction of statutory procedures, good faith, and that the arrangement be fair and reasonable.

The court found the statutory requirements met, the transaction negotiated at arm’s length and recommended by the board, and the arrangement supported by an overwhelming shareholder vote with no dissent.

The court also addressed the evidentiary role of fairness opinions in M&A transactions, holding that such opinions may support good faith and fairness even if not tendered as expert evidence.

Approval of the arrangement was granted.

In CCAA proceedings involving a mining company, competing motions were brought concerning the restructuring process.

The debtor sought directions regarding the procedure for resolving noteholder claims and the alleged misuse of confidential information by certain creditors, while the noteholders sought an order convening a meeting of creditors to vote on their proposed plan of arrangement.

The court held that calling a creditors’ meeting was premature because the proposed plan conflicted with the debtor-in-possession financing facility, had been introduced without meaningful consultation, and unresolved claims and litigation issues could affect voting rights and recoveries.

The court dismissed the noteholders’ motion without prejudice and declined to order disclosure sought by the debtor.

The stay of proceedings was extended to facilitate continued negotiations and mediation.