Jessica Lee Wuthmann

The court was asked to decide between the debtors’ application for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and the Toronto-Dominion Bank’s application for the appointment of a receiver.

After reviewing the facts and arguments, the court concluded that it was most just and convenient to appoint a receiver, dismissing the CCAA application.

The decision reviews the history of the debtors’ restructuring efforts, the positions of the parties, and the legal principles governing the choice between CCAA and receivership, ultimately finding that the interests of the senior secured creditor should prevail in the circumstances.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for a land lease community, the senior secured lender brought a motion to appoint a receiver.

The CCAA stay of proceedings was expiring, DIP financing was exhausted, and no viable restructuring plan or purchaser had emerged.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver to stabilize the community, ensure continuation of essential water and sewage services, and facilitate a credit bid by the secured lender.

A separate unopposed motion to lift the stay to allow repossession of unused modular homes was also granted.

The Moving Parties (First Nations and Municipalities) sought to stay the implementation of a $150 million settlement between Purdue Canada and Canadian Governments, arguing it might be unlawful, prejudicial, preferential, or an abuse of process, and sought financial disclosure from Purdue Canada.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked a basis to compel disclosure or stay the settlement.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction over Purdue Canada was limited to the CCAA recognition proceedings, not general supervision, and found no evidence of bad faith or insolvency to warrant the requested orders.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment recognizing and enforcing a US$1.6 million New York judgment.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Ontario enforcement action was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not raised its limitation period argument before the motion judge and had previously agreed that the limitation period began when the New York appeal was dismissed, in accordance with established precedent.

The court declined to reconsider its prior jurisprudence on when the limitation period for enforcing foreign judgments commences.

Angela Beauty Parlour Ltd. (Plaintiff) sued Gurnam and Surjit Multani (Defendants) for breach of a commercial lease, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation related to a beauty salon unit and residential units.

The Defendants counterclaimed for increased rent.

The court found that the Defendants were responsible for the cost of installing a tiled floor ($5,844) and ordered the return of $12,000 paid by the Plaintiff under an unenforceable oral agreement for increased rent.

All other claims by the Plaintiff, including for renovation costs, lost profits, and damages for misrepresentation or breach of quiet enjoyment/parking, were dismissed.

The Defendants' counterclaim for increased rent was also dismissed as the oral agreement was unenforceable.

The appellant, an egg producer, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion to belatedly comply with a 2013 judgment order requiring payment into court.

The appellant had failed to pay the judgment funds into court, failed to bring a motion to add respondents as defendants to a related action, and took no further steps to advance its counterclaim for five years.

When the appellant finally returned to court in 2018, it sought permission to proceed with the counterclaim and amend it.

The motion judge applied the test from Rule 48 (dismissal for delay), placing the onus on the appellant to establish an acceptable explanation for the delay and that respondents would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion judge found the appellant's explanation inadequate and concluded actual prejudice existed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's legal test or factual findings.