Kate Boyle

This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.

The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.

The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.

This endorsement concerns a joint motion brought by the court-appointed Monitors for JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. in their ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Monitors sought a Sanction Protocol Order to establish the date for the Sanction Hearing, ratify the litigation timetable, approve the dissemination of the Agenda and Sanction Hearing procedure, approve the Omnibus Sanction Hearing Notice, and set the deadline for Sanction Hearing Objection Notices.

The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with three orders signed.

This endorsement addresses an interlocutory injunction motion within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) insolvency proceedings of three major tobacco companies.

Representative counsel for the Pan-Canadian Claimants sought to enjoin Actis Law Group and its principal from advertising legal services and soliciting retainers from claimants.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) was met.

The court emphasized that Actis's actions risked confusing vulnerable claimants and undermining the equitable and orderly resolution of the CCAA proceedings, particularly given that the court-appointed class counsel and a specially crafted compensation plan already provide services to claimants at no cost.

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.

An aircraft struck the ground while attempting to land at Halifax Stanfield International Airport during a snowstorm, injuring passengers who subsequently commenced a class action.

The aircraft manufacturer brought an interlocutory motion to compel the Transportation Safety Board to produce the cockpit voice recorder and transcripts, which were protected by statutory privilege under s. 28 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

The Board sought to make submissions in the absence of the public and other parties, which the chambers judge refused.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Board's appeal, holding that s. 28(6)(b) does not confer a general right on the Board to make submissions in the absence of other parties, and that the chambers judge did not commit a reviewable error in ordering disclosure after concluding that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the statutory privilege.

The majority held the test under s. 28(6)(c) requires the moving party to establish that the recording is relevant, probative, and necessary to resolve the dispute — not merely relevant — and that disclosure should not be routine.

Côté and Brown JJ. dissented, finding the chambers judge committed multiple reviewable errors in his balancing analysis.