Jonathan Bell

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act that imposed a 12-month pre-writ restricted spending period for third-party political advertising.

The government had previously enacted similar amendments that were struck down under section 2(b) of the Charter, but re-enacted them using the section 33 notwithstanding clause.

The applicants argued the amendments violated the right to vote under section 3 of the Charter, which is not subject to the notwithstanding clause.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the spending limits were carefully tailored to the egalitarian model of elections and did not infringe the right to meaningful participation in the electoral process.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the defendants, alleging they breached a Mareva injunction by using frozen assets to pay for living and legal expenses.

In response, the defendants brought several procedural motions.

Dr. Saad moved to strike compelled evidence from the plaintiffs' contempt motion record, arguing it violated his Charter rights against self-incrimination.

The court dismissed this motion, finding that a contempt motion is not 'other proceedings' under s. 13 and that ss. 7 and 11(c) did not apply to previously compelled evidence.

Dr. Saad also moved under Rule 21 to exclude prior judicial rulings made in the civil action from the contempt motion.

The court granted this motion, holding that findings made on a civil standard are inadmissible in a quasi-criminal contempt proceeding.

The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants to answer undertakings and produce documents.

The court ordered Dr. Saad to answer undertakings but ruled the answers could not be used in the contempt motion, and declined to order further document production that would conscript the defendants to assist in their own prosecution.

The court also limited the plaintiffs' disclosure obligations to the alleged breach, refusing broad discovery on the underlying fraud.

Finally, the court dismissed Mohammed's motion to stay the contempt proceedings pending his appeal on jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a partner at the defendant accounting firm, was forced to retire after the firm's CEO decided to reduce the number of partners due to an economic downturn.

The firm's policy board subsequently voted to compel his resignation under a provision of the partnership agreement allowing expulsion in the best interests of the partnership.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the policy board did not genuinely determine the issue but merely rubber-stamped the CEO's predetermined decision.

The court held that the expulsion was invalid and awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages for lost profits and retirement benefits, as well as aggravated damages for reputational harm.

The applicants in CCAA proceedings sought an extension of the Stay Period to April 15, 2016, as they prepared an Amended and Restated Plan of Compromise.

The court found the parties were working in good faith and with due diligence, and granted the extension.

The court also approved an agreement to lift the Co-Tenancy Stay on acceptable terms and extended the Notice of Objection Bar Date.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

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.

Third party lenders sought declarations in CCAA proceedings that funds, brokered payday loans, and receivables advanced through the debtor company were their property and not assets of the debtor estate.

The court examined the written broker agreements and the parties’ actual practices, including commingling of funds, guaranteed returns to lenders, and capital protection arrangements that insulated lenders from loan losses.

The evidence showed the lenders received fixed 17.5% returns irrespective of customer loan performance and that all loan proceeds and repayments flowed through the debtor’s general accounts.

The court held that the parties’ conduct varied the broker agreements and created a debtor–creditor relationship rather than a trust or agency relationship.

The lenders’ motions for declarations of ownership were dismissed and the disputed receipts were held to belong beneficially to the debtor.

In a liquidating CCAA proceeding, the court considered whether a deemed trust under the Pension Benefits Act arose in respect of pension plan wind-up deficiencies, giving priority over secured creditors.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Indalex, the court held that no deemed trust arose because the pension plans were not wound up prior to the CCAA Initial Order.

The court granted the second lien lenders' motion to lift the stay of proceedings to allow a bankruptcy petition to proceed, concluding that imposing a provincial deemed trust priority in the middle of an insolvency proceeding would undermine the predictability and flexibility of the CCAA regime.

The applicant, Sino-Forest Corporation, sought an order sanctioning a plan of compromise and reorganization under the CCAA.

The plan was supported by the vast majority of creditors, including noteholders, auditors, and underwriters, but opposed by certain funds.

The court found that the statutory requirements were met, the creditors were properly classified, and the plan, including its third-party releases, was fair and reasonable.

The motion was granted and the plan was sanctioned.