5 total
Receiver operating an insolvent business declared a successor employer bound by collective bargaining rights.
The applicant Receiver sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring it a successor employer under the Labour Relations Act.
The Receiver had been operating an insolvent debtor's retirement home business for several years.
The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable that the Receiver met the test for a successor employer.
The Court also agreed that section 14.06(1.2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not immunize a receiver from prospective collective bargaining obligations, but only from pre-appointment liabilities.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Case management directions issued for a judicial review application to be heard via ZOOM videoconference.
The court issued a case management endorsement to schedule an application for judicial review of an arbitrator's decision.
The hearing was scheduled to proceed by ZOOM videoconference before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.
The court provided detailed procedural directions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities, via an electronic drop box.
Court approves disputed legal disbursement and increases CCAA costs award.
In CCAA proceedings, the court issued a supplementary costs endorsement following an earlier costs decision.
The issue concerned whether the full amount of a law firm disbursement account should be added to the cost award.
After reviewing detailed particulars, the court found the discounted account represented fair value for services rendered and that the disbursements were reasonable.
The court approved inclusion of the full amount of the account as a disbursement and revised the total costs award accordingly.
Broad CCAA releases barred later pension-related class action against former directors.
Former directors sought declarations that claims advanced in a Quebec class action concerning pension losses were barred by releases granted during Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.
The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the motion because the dispute concerned the effect of orders and releases issued within the CCAA restructuring.
The contractual releases executed by the union on behalf of beneficiaries were broadly worded and applied to all claims relating to facts existing at the time of the release, whether known or unknown.
The court found that the claims process and releases extinguished any potential claims against the directors relating to the pension deficit.
Accordingly, the Quebec class action claims against the directors were fully and irrevocably released.
Leave to appeal denied; DIP financing super priority correctly took paramountcy over provincial pension legislation.
The unions sought leave to appeal an order granting super priority to a DIP lender over provincial pension legislation in a CCAA restructuring.
The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding the proposed appeals lacked sufficient merit.
The court upheld the motion judge's application of the doctrine of paramountcy, agreeing that without the DIP financing and super priority, the objectives of the CCAA would be frustrated and the company would be forced into bankruptcy.