Jeremy R. Opolsky

In the context of a CCAA proceeding, Port of Algoma Inc. (Portco) brought a motion seeking an order compelling the debtor, Essar Steel Algoma Inc., to make post-filing payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement and for an administrative charge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the Monitor was directed to commence an oppression proceeding regarding the underlying related party transactions.

The court also rejected Portco's renewed arguments under section 11.01(a) of the CCAA, noting they had been decided in a prior motion, and declined to lift the stay of proceedings, emphasizing that doing so would be contrary to the interests of the stakeholders and the restructuring process.

This case concerns the interpretation of a 1985 indemnity agreement granted by the Province of Ontario to Great Lakes Forest Products Limited (now Resolute FP Canada Inc.) and its successors and assigns, regarding mercury contamination.

Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, a subsequent owner of the property, and Resolute sought indemnity from the Province for costs incurred complying with a 2011 environmental remediation order issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the indemnity's broad language covered statutory claims by provincial agencies and that the fettering doctrine did not apply to this business agreement.

Weyerhaeuser was also found to be able to rely on the indemnity as a successor or assignee.

Portco sought orders for immediate and future payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement, and a US$5 million charge on Algoma's assets, arguing the payments were required post-filing in a CCAA proceeding.

The CCAA Applicants (Algoma) and DIP lenders opposed, citing the DIP Agreement's budget approval requirement and an arguable right to equitable set-off against a promissory note owed by Portco's parent company (EGFL) to Algoma.

The court found that the DIP Agreement and Initial Order did not mandate payments without DIP lender approval and that an arguable case for equitable set-off existed.

The motion was dismissed as premature, pending determination of the set-off issue and other concerns raised by the Monitor regarding the Portco transaction and recapitalization.

The United Steelworkers Local Union 2251, supported by USW Local 2724 and Essar Algoma retirees, brought a motion to qualify a "Subject Bidder" as a Phase II Bidder in a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The Subject Bidder had been disqualified by Essar Algoma, its Chief Restructuring Advisor, Financial Advisor, and the Monitor for failing to provide satisfactory evidence of financial capability to consummate a transaction.

The union argued it was not properly consulted in the disqualification decision and that it should have been allowed to meet with the Subject Bidder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the union's consultation rights under the Sale and Solicitation Process (SISP) did not extend to decisions on a bidder's financial capability, and that the court should not second-guess the business judgment of the CCAA applicants and their professionals.

Various parties brought motions seeking reconsideration or clarification of a prior joint allocation decision determining the distribution of $7.3 billion in escrow among debtor estates in multinational insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties argued that aspects of the allocation methodology—including treatment of bond guarantee claims, certain asset sale proceeds, intercompany claims, tax claims, and settled claims—required amendment or clarification.

The court reiterated that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and rejected most requests because the issues either had been addressed at trial or could have been raised earlier.

Limited clarification was granted regarding the treatment of bondholder claims against guarantors and recognition of certain court‑approved settled pre‑filing claims that had been paid.

Other requested clarifications or amendments were denied.

The moving parties sought interim and interlocutory injunctive relief to prevent unilateral termination of an affiliate property manager under a co-owners agreement and property management agreement governing a jointly owned commercial plaza.

The court found a strong prima facie case that the responding parties had acted unilaterally and in clear breach of the contractual unanimity requirements, and rejected the asserted conflict-based disenfranchisement of the moving parties at the co-owners committee meeting.

However, the motion failed because the alleged harm was compensable in damages and the evidence did not establish irreparable harm arising from the management dispute or ongoing tenant negotiations.

Although the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo, the injunction was dismissed and no costs were awarded.