Jennifer Lina Caruso

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

The Monitor, FTI Consulting Canada Inc., brought a motion for an approval and vesting order in respect of the Purchased Assets and the sale thereof to Vault or an affiliate pursuant to the Rifco Asset Purchase Agreement, and for a stay extension order.

The Court approved the Rifco APA and the AVO, finding the process reasonable, the requirements of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act satisfied, and the transaction in the best interests of stakeholders.

The stay extension was also granted.

A self-represented plaintiff, suffering from multiple health conditions including Asperger's and PTSD, sued the Government of Canada challenging the exclusion of mental illness from Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) eligibility.

Following a prior ruling by Centa J. that the claim was not frivolous or vexatious, the Government of Canada sought to schedule a motion under Rule 21 to strike the claim for failing to plead a constitutional cause of action with sufficient specificity.

The court, acknowledging the plaintiff's self-represented status, declined to schedule the motion to strike at this stage.

Instead, the court directed the plaintiff to amend his Statement of Claim within 30 days to provide specific details regarding his illnesses, the Charter section relied upon, the specific legislation challenged, and any prior MAID applications or refusals.

The plaintiff was also directed to name "The Attorney General of Canada" as the defendant.

A further case conference was scheduled.