Jeffrey Wayne Galway

The applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc., sought an extension of the stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to July 28, 2016.

United States Steel Corporation (USS) opposed, seeking a shorter extension and the imposition of conditions for disclosure of Phase II bids and an updated liquidation analysis.

The court granted the extension as requested by the applicant, finding that the applicant acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that a longer stay furthered the prospect of a successful restructuring.

The court denied USS's requests for a shorter extension and conditions, deeming them premature and potentially detrimental to the restructuring process, and found insufficient evidence of value destruction.

The applicants (Representative Counsel for non-unionized employees and retirees, USW Locals 1005 and 8782, and the City of Hamilton) sought "for counsel's eyes only" disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement between United States Steel Corporation (USS), U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), and the Government of Canada.

The motion was brought in the context of CCAA proceedings, with applicants arguing procedural fairness and a minor exemption from settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate how they would be prejudiced without access to the specific details of the undertakings in the agreement, or how the information was material to their claims or negotiations.

The court emphasized that there is no exemption from settlement privilege for the purpose of reviewing a document to determine if a public interest exists that would displace the privilege.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending enterprise, class members in Ontario consumer class actions moved for approval of three settlement agreements forming part of a broader global resolution of litigation involving the debtor companies, their directors and officers, and related parties.

The settlements resolved certain class claims and partially resolved a third‑party lender claim, providing more than $10 million in recovery with potential participation in future litigation proceeds.

The court applied established settlement approval factors including likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel recommendations, absence of objections, and arm’s‑length negotiations.

The court concluded that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and the restructuring process.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Purchasers of the Applicants' Securities moved for approval of a settlement agreement and plan of allocation in the context of CCAA proceedings involving Cash Store Financial Services and related entities.

The settlement provided for a payment of $13,779,167 by the defendants to resolve allegations of false and misleading statements regarding financial results.

The court approved the settlement and the associated third-party releases, finding them fair, reasonable, and consistent with the purpose of the CCAA.

The motion to approve the plan of allocation was adjourned on consent.

This was a costs decision arising from a class proceeding settlement approval process involving objectors represented at a third settlement approval hearing.

The court held that the unusual procedural history made the case unsuitable for setting broader principles about costs to objectors, and instead enforced its earlier direction that up to $100,000 had been budgeted for this expense, less $17,500 already awarded in the abandoned appeal.

The objectors' claim for $222,515 all inclusive was rejected as excessive.

The court awarded $82,500 all inclusive, holding that services connected to taking instructions, the abandoned appeal circumstances, and preparation for and attendance at the settlement approval motion fell within the intended scope of compensable work.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's class action appeal as statute-barred, the respondent trust companies sought costs.

The appellant argued that no costs should be awarded because the action was brought in the public interest and raised a new point of law under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1991.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding no improper conduct by the respondents and concluding that costs should follow the event.

The respondents were awarded their requested costs totaling $61,966.55.

The appellant appealed a Rule 21 motion decision that dismissed her proposed class action claims for constructive and common law fraud against the respondent trustees.

The motion judge found the claims were released by a CCAA settlement and were statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the appellant had all material facts necessary to discover her claim when the Monitor's 39th report was issued in February 2010.

Because she issued her notice of action more than two years later in August 2012, the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal dismissing his claim for a pension from his former employer.

The appellant argued that the pension plan's locking-in provision was clear and entitled him to a pension, or alternatively, that the ambiguous provision should be interpreted in his favour using the contra proferentem rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the ambiguous provision was reasonable and consistent with the legislative context, and that the Tribunal made no error in declining to apply the contra proferentem principle.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the former and current trustees of the Nortel Health and Welfare Trust, alleging fraud and constructive fraud in the administration of the trust.

The defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21, arguing that the claims were barred by a release granted in Nortel's CCAA proceedings and were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the CCAA release barred the constructive fraud claims, and that the plaintiff failed to plead a tenable claim for common law fraud.

Furthermore, the court found that the claims were discovered outside the two-year limitation period.

The action was dismissed.

In a class proceeding concerning the ownership of surplus from partial wind-ups of a pension plan and alleged improper administrative expenses, the parties sought approval of a revised settlement agreement after earlier settlement arrangements failed due to significant changes in actuarial surplus estimates.

The motion was brought under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 for court approval of the amended settlement.

Despite objections from certain class members, the court held the revised agreement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class when assessed against litigation risks, fluctuating actuarial calculations, and the possibility that the employer might ultimately have been entitled to the surplus.

The settlement substantially increased the guaranteed distribution to class members and included financial concessions from both the defendant and class counsel.

The court approved the amended settlement as falling within the acceptable range of reasonableness for class action settlements.

In proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the court addressed scheduling issues for a complex multi‑party trial involving the allocation of assets among creditor groups.

The parties proposed deferring the trial from April 1, 2014 to April 28, 2014, but disagreement remained regarding whether the later date would be feasible.

The court concluded that maintaining the earlier date risked a chaotic trial and that a rolling start date would create further uncertainty.

To ensure certainty and orderly preparation, the court rescheduled the trial to begin May 12, 2014 for 20 days and set case management and trial management conferences.

The court also required all parties to provide comprehensive fee and disbursement summaries to monitor escalating litigation costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $23,000, inclusive of relevant disbursements and taxes.

The respondent obtained a New York judgment requiring the appellant to deliver a painting pursuant to a contract of sale.

The respondent successfully moved in Ontario to enforce the New York judgment, and was awarded substantial indemnity costs based on the appellant's conduct in the New York litigation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the enforcement order, finding that the appellant had attorned to the New York court's jurisdiction by advancing substantive defences on the merits in that forum.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, holding that the scale of costs should be determined by the appellant's conduct in the Ontario proceeding, not the foreign litigation, and substituted an award of partial indemnity costs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to compel the representative plaintiff to answer discovery questions regarding class members' tax and income information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the questions were speculative, disproportionate, and premature given that the methodology for calculating damages had not yet been determined.

The plaintiffs in a pension surplus class action moved for court approval of an amendment to a previously approved settlement after actuarial assumptions underlying the settlement proved incorrect and the anticipated surplus dramatically declined.

The amended settlement offered a guaranteed minimum payment and a potential capped second distribution if surplus re‑emerged by a specified date.

Numerous class members objected, arguing the amendment was unfair and inconsistent with the expectations created during the original settlement campaign.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under s. 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to approve or reject the amended settlement but concluded the proposal was substantively, procedurally, circumstantially, and institutionally unfair.

The court emphasized that settlement approval requires fairness beyond mere monetary advantage and refused to approve an unfair settlement even if it represented the better option among undesirable alternatives.

In a certified class proceeding concerning the partial wind-up of a supplemental retirement plan, the defendant insurer brought a refusals motion seeking production of income information, tax assessments, and projected retirement income from the representative plaintiff and certain subclass members.

The defendant argued the information was necessary for its actuarial expert to quantify potential damages.

The court held that the requested information related to individual damage quantification rather than the certified common issues, which were limited to liability and the methodology for calculating damages.

Because the trial judge had not yet determined the methodology for assessing damages or whether aggregate damages could be assessed, ordering production was premature.

The court also held that obtaining information from absent class members would require leave under s. 15 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The motion was dismissed.

Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment on an appeal, the respondent Aviva Canada Inc. requested that the court reopen its decision based on a recently released Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the standard of review.

Aviva argued that the new decision altered the applicable standard of review from reasonableness to correctness due to concurrent jurisdiction provisions in the Insurance Act.

The court denied the request, noting that the parties did not agree an error had been made and finding that it was not in the interests of justice to withdraw the reasons and rehear the case on the merits.

The applicant sought costs following a successful application to enforce a New York judgment in Ontario concerning the sale of a painting.

The court had previously permitted enforcement of the foreign judgment but stayed execution pending the outcome of an appeal in New York.

The applicant requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the respondent had repeatedly attempted to relitigate issues already decided and had engaged in delay tactics through multiple proceedings and appeals.

The court agreed that the respondent’s conduct justified substantial indemnity costs but reduced the amount claimed due to concerns about the involvement of multiple senior counsel.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the amount of $94,298.28 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant sought to enforce a New York judgment ordering the respondent to deliver a painting purchased by the applicant.

The respondent opposed enforcement, arguing lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, denial of natural justice, and a novel 'comity' defence, while also requesting a stay pending an appeal in New York.

The court rejected all of the respondent's defences, finding the New York court had jurisdiction and its process was fair.

The court ordered that the New York judgment could be enforced in Ontario, but granted a short, conditional stay of enforcement pending the determination of the respondent's ongoing appeal in New York.