Joe Thorne

The applicant, Tacora Resources Inc., sought approval for an Amended and Restated Debtor in Possession (DIP) financing agreement with Cargill and an extension of the CCAA Stay Period.

The Ad Hoc Group of Noteholders (AHG) opposed the Cargill DIP, proposing an alternative and seeking renegotiation of terms, including an exit fee, legal costs, and the "Offtake Condition" related to a pre-existing commercial agreement with Cargill.

The court approved the Cargill DIP and extended the stay, finding the Cargill agreement offered greater short-term stability and liquidity, was recommended by the Monitor, and did not materially prejudice other stakeholders beyond what already existed due to the pre-CCAA Offtake Agreement.

The court held that the DIP approval motion was not the appropriate forum to address the enforceability or commercial reasonableness of the Offtake Agreement itself.

Tacora Resources Inc. sought an amended and restated initial order (ARIO) and a solicitation order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to facilitate its restructuring, including approval for a $75 million debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing facility from Cargill.

An ad hoc group of senior noteholders (AHG) opposed the Cargill DIP facility, alleging a flawed process and material prejudice, and brought a cross-motion for approval of their own competing DIP proposal.

The court found that Tacora's Board exercised reasonable business judgment in selecting the Cargill DIP facility, which was financially superior and less prejudicial to creditors overall than the AHG's proposal.

The court dismissed the AHG's cross-motion, finding no evidence of improper conduct by Cargill or the Board, and granted Tacora's requested ARIO and Solicitation Order, including approval of the Cargill DIP facility, an extended stay period, a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP), and a sealing order for KERP details.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning whether corporate decisions favouring a chief executive officer were protected by the business judgment rule and whether the executive was entitled to severance benefits, the court found that the executive breached fiduciary duties but remained entitled to severance under his employment arrangements, subject to recalculation excluding benefits arising from the breach.

Both sides claimed substantial success and sought significant costs awards, including requests for substantial indemnity costs based on abandoned allegations and trial outcomes.

The court held that the litigation involved two principal issues—fiduciary breach and entitlement to severance—and each party succeeded on one of them.

Because success was effectively divided and no settlement offers were made, the court determined that neither party should recover costs.

In a certified class proceeding arising from a failed public company and alleged negligent audits, both sides brought refusals motions concerning answers and undertakings given during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs alleged that the auditors negligently prepared audit reports relied upon by lenders in extending a $1.5‑billion credit facility, while the auditors denied any duty of care and advanced additional defences.

The court reviewed the permissible scope of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, emphasizing relevance, materiality, proportionality, and recognized categories justifying refusals.

Applying those principles, the court ruled on numerous disputed questions, ordering some answers and upholding others as unanswerable, irrelevant, disproportionate, or privileged.

Costs of the refusals motions were ordered to be in the cause.

In a certified class proceeding arising from a failed public company and alleged negligent audits, both sides brought refusals motions concerning answers and undertakings given during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs alleged that the auditors negligently prepared audit reports relied upon by lenders in extending a $1.5‑billion credit facility, while the auditors denied any duty of care and advanced additional defences.

The court reviewed the permissible scope of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, emphasizing relevance, materiality, proportionality, and recognized categories justifying refusals.

Applying those principles, the court ruled on numerous disputed questions, ordering some answers and upholding others as unanswerable, irrelevant, disproportionate, or privileged.

Costs of the refusals motions were ordered to be in the cause.