Joseph James Bellissimo

This endorsement approves the Monitor's motion for a Second Omnibus Credit Bid Vesting Order and a Second DIP Allocation and Orderly Liquidation Mechanics Order in the restructuring proceedings of Balboa Inc. and related applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The court finds the proposed sale transactions, lease assignments, DIP allocation, and liquidation mechanics to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of stakeholders, and extends the stay of proceedings to August 31, 2025.

This endorsement grants the Court-appointed Monitor’s motion for approval of a credit bid process and orderly liquidation plan in the CCAA proceedings of Balboa Inc. and related applicants.

The Court approves the sale agreements, a secondary credit bid process for remaining properties, and an orderly liquidation plan, as well as the Monitor’s reports, activities, and fees.

The stay of proceedings is extended to May 31, 2025.

The decision details the mechanics of the credit bid process, the rationale for the relief, and the Court’s satisfaction that the process is appropriate and fair in the circumstances.

The Monitor in the CCAA proceedings for Balboa Inc. and related entities sought court approval for two main orders: first, approving Credit Bid Asset Purchase Agreements (APAs), vesting properties in purchasers, and assigning tenant leases; and second, extending the stay period, approving a replacement DIP facility (Viscount DIP Term Sheet), repaying the existing DIP, amending charges, and approving the Monitor's reports, activities, fees, and disbursements.

The motions were unopposed.

The court granted the relief, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of stakeholders, despite the unfortunate circumstances and hardship expressed by affected lenders.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction under the CCAA and applied relevant principles for asset sales, lease assignments, interim financing, and cost allocation.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.

These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.

The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.

In a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding, the DIP Lender, Cortland Credit Lending Corporation, sought a case management order to schedule a threshold motion.

The motion aimed to determine the legal priority of Cortland's claims over those of Final Bell Corp., which had amended its claim to seek a constructive trust that could prime the DIP charge.

The CCAA Applicants supported the motion, arguing it would avoid further delays to the Stalking Horse Purchase Agreement approval.

Final Bell Corp. opposed, viewing it as an unfair mid-trial motion for partial summary judgment.

The court, exercising its broad discretion as the supervising CCAA court, granted the motion, directing that the threshold issue of legal priority be determined first to minimize costs and maximize efficiency, finding no prejudice to Final Bell Corp.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants sought three orders: approval of a factoring portfolio purchase agreement, approval for distribution of proceeds from a property sale, and permission for a creditor to sell certain vehicles.

The court approved the distribution of Chehalis property proceeds to Roynat.

For the Regions vehicles, the court granted the order allowing Regions to take possession, setting a 30-day retrieval period and approving storage costs of $35/day.

The motion for approval of the JD Factors Purchase Agreement was adjourned to a later date, as Mitsubishi HC Capital Canada Inc. objected, claiming ownership of the receivables and requiring more time to prepare its position.

BZAM Ltd. and Cortland Credit Lending Corporation brought a motion for security for costs against Final Bell Holdings International Ltd. within an ongoing CCAA proceeding.

Final Bell had initiated a claim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation against BZAM and seeking damages and equitable relief, including a constructive trust.

The court determined that Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, concerning security for costs, applies to claims within CCAA proceedings, and that Cortland, as a directly affected stakeholder, was entitled to seek such security.

Finding that Final Bell was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award, the court ordered Final Bell to post security for costs in favour of BZAM ($350,000) and Cortland ($147,000).

Additionally, Final Bell was ordered to pay the costs of the motion to BZAM ($20,000) and Cortland ($8,500).

The Applicants, a group of affiliated cannabis companies, sought and were granted an initial order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to insolvency and an urgent liquidity crisis.

The court declared them eligible for CCAA protection, appointed FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as Monitor, approved a debtor-in-possession (DIP) credit facility of up to $2.4 million for initial working capital, granted a 10-day stay of proceedings, extended the stay to non-applicant affiliated entities and their directors/officers, approved administration and directors' charges, and provided relief from certain securities reporting obligations.

The court found Ontario to be the chief place of business, establishing jurisdiction.

In the CCAA proceedings of Laurentian University, the applicant sought an order regarding a Compensation Claims Process.

On consent, the court deferred relief related to Third Party RHBP Claims to a subsequent hearing, ordering that the deadlines and procedures in the Compensation Claims Process Order would not apply to those claims at this time.

The remaining unopposed relief was granted.

Laurentian University brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings seeking the appointment of a Chief Redevelopment Officer, an increase in the fee cap for the Board of Governors' independent counsel, and approval of a claims process.

The court approved the appointment of the CRO and the fee increase.

Regarding the claims process, TD Bank proposed amendments to require consultation on claims over $5 million.

Balancing the need for efficiency with creditor involvement, the court modified the claims process to establish an 'Inspector Group' to authorize the compromise of material claims, drawing on principles from the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

This motion concerned the winding-up of Maple Bank GmbH.

The Liquidator sought approval for a Fourth Interim Distribution, a reduction in the reserve held, and approval of the Fourteenth Report of the Liquidator and its activities.

Additionally, the Liquidator sought approval for a Data Custodian Order.

There was no opposition to the requested relief, with Canada Revenue Agency's pending claim being addressed by a maintained reserve.

The court granted the motion, approving the distribution, the reduction in reserve, the Liquidator's report and activities, and the Data Custodian Order.

The applicants sought an order sanctioning their Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and extending the stay period.

The Plan aimed to restructure the Pacific Group's indebtedness by approximately US $5.1 billion and maintain it as a going concern.

A Shareholder Consortium proposed an alternative recapitalization and refinancing proposal and requested an adjournment, which was opposed by the applicants and other stakeholders.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the alternative proposal a "last minute effort to de-rail" the restructuring.

The court sanctioned the Plan, finding strict compliance with CCAA requirements, good faith, and that the Plan was fair and reasonable, representing the best alternative available.

The court also approved third-party releases and granted a stay of proceedings for non-applicant parties, as well as extending the stay period.

In a court‑appointed receivership over payroll service companies, the receiver sought a declaration that a customer breached the stay provision of the receivership order by recalling funds previously transferred through a pre‑authorized debit.

The funds had already been deposited into the debtor’s consolidated account prior to the receivership order but were later reversed after the customer learned of the receivership.

The court held that once deposited, the funds constituted “Property” of the debtor within the meaning of the receivership order, even if intended for payroll.

By requesting reimbursement through its bank after receiving notice of the receivership, the customer exercised a remedy affecting the debtor’s property and breached the stay.

The court ordered repayment of the funds to the receiver with interest, while allowing the customer to prove a claim in the receivership distribution.

The appellant was substantially successful on an appeal regarding the court-ordered sale of properties.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellant costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court directed that the costs be paid by the respondent personally rather than by the Estate, and declined to make any costs order regarding the Receiver or a prior consent motion.

The appellant challenged the legal effectiveness of a transfer of shares in a closely held corporation by a bankrupt shareholder's trustee in bankruptcy to another corporation.

The appellant argued the transfer did not comply with share transfer restrictions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that equitable title had passed for good consideration and that any defect in the original transfer was cured by a subsequent confirming transfer by the trustee.

Following the bankruptcy of Canada 3000, airport authorities sought to seize leased aircraft for unpaid charges.

The parties negotiated protocols allowing the release of the aircraft to the lessors in exchange for a Release Fund.

The Supreme Court of Canada later held that the authorities had a statutory right to detain the aircraft, which could be exercised against the substituted security.

The lessors appealed a motion judge's order allowing the authorities to draw on the Release Fund, arguing the preconditions of the protocols were not met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the protocols were a voluntary commercial arrangement and the authorities' right to the fund was triggered by the judicial grant of the detention remedy.