Kenneth David Kraft

This endorsement addresses a case conference requested by Sergio Grillone, an undischarged bankrupt, seeking directions regarding his proposed appeal from a scheduling endorsement and related matters in ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.

The court finds that Mr. Grillone has no right of appeal from the scheduling endorsement, as no order has been made from which an appeal lies, and dismisses his proposed motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01.

The decision details the procedural history, the positions of the parties, and the court’s reasoning for dismissing the motion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the disposition of $30,000 posted by the appellant, Sergio Grillone, as security for costs on appeal, following his bankruptcy.

The appellant argued the funds were assets of his estate to be distributed to creditors, while the respondent, Bluecore Capital Inc., sought payment of outstanding costs from the security.

The court rejected the appellant's submission, concluding that the security for costs was not an asset of the bankruptcy estate but was specifically posted to secure the costs of the appeal and related motions.

The respondent was found entitled to the full amount of the security to cover its outstanding costs.

The appellant, Sergio Grillone, brought a motion to vary a previous decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or misapplication of discretion by the motion judge.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

Bluecore Capital Inc., the respondent on appeal, brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a bankruptcy order against Sergio Grillone, the appellant, and for an order requiring Mr. Grillone to post security for costs of the appeal.

The motion judge granted the motion, finding that Mr. Grillone had not diligently prosecuted his appeal, his grounds of appeal were very weak, he had failed to satisfy previous cost orders, and the relative prejudice strongly favoured lifting the stay to allow a trustee to manage his assets for the benefit of creditors.

The court also ordered Mr. Grillone to post $30,000 as security for costs.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), as the court-appointed Liquidator for the winding-up of Silicon Valley Bank's Canadian business, brought a motion seeking approval for a Claims Procedure, the appointment of Employee Representative Counsel, and authorization for interim distributions to the United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

The motion was unopposed and supported by the FDIC and proposed Employee Representative Counsel.

The court approved all requested relief, finding the proposed procedures fair, efficient, and appropriate for the Winding-up and Restructuring Act (WURA) proceedings.

The applicants, senior secured lenders, sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of "The One" mixed-use construction project due to financial and covenant defaults by the borrower.

The project, significantly delayed and over budget, had outstanding debt of approximately $1.235 billion.

The appointment of Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc. as receiver was unopposed by any key stakeholder.

The court granted the application, appointed the receiver, approved a super-priority receivership funding credit agreement of up to $315 million, and issued a stay of proceedings, finding it just and convenient to stabilize the situation and maximize recovery for all stakeholders.

This endorsement addresses an unopposed motion brought by the Applicants in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The Applicants sought an order extending the stay period until January 31, 2024, approving the Monitor’s 58th Report and its activities, and approving the fees and disbursements of the Monitor, Monitor’s counsel, and Applicants’ counsel.

The court found that the Applicants continued to work in good faith and with due diligence, had sufficient resources for the extension period, and that the requested extension and fee approvals were reasonable.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The Monitor in the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. and affiliated entities sought court approval for a settlement agreement and an amendment to the Initial Order.

The settlement resolved a dispute over a $5.9 million consulting fee with Mattamy (Downsview) Limited, resulting in a $2.9 million asset for Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. (UTMI).

The amendment increased the authorized intercompany loan limit from $1 million to $4.7 million to reflect actual advances to UTMI.

The court approved both the settlement and the amendment, finding them fair, reasonable, and consistent with the CCAA's purpose, but made the approvals conditional upon obtaining corresponding approval from the Israeli Court, given the intertwined nature of the foreign proceeding.

Nanopay Corporation, a startup providing embedded payment solutions, filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The company moved for an extension of time to file a proposal, authority to borrow under a DIP (Debtor-in-Possession) credit facility, and approval to engage a Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO).

The court granted the motion, approving the DIP Term Sheet, appointing the CRO, and extending the proposal filing deadline to August 2, 2023, finding that the company acted in good faith and with due diligence, and no creditor would be materially prejudiced.

An interim limit was placed on initial DIP advances.

This appeal concerned the sale of Lash Point, a family cottage property owned by a non-profit corporation (LPAC).

Family members were divided between "Remainers" (who wanted to keep the property) and "Departers" (who wanted to sell their interests).

A lower court initially ordered a staged buy-out, but due to delays, a motion judge later approved an en bloc sale of the entire property to third parties, reversing the original plan.

The appellants (Remainers and LPAC) appealed, arguing the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to vary the original order and erred in approving the sale without satisfying the principles for sale approval in receivership contexts (Soundair principles).

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's jurisdiction to vary the order but found that the sale approval was flawed as it did not meet the Soundair principles, particularly regarding efforts to obtain the best price and the integrity of the sales process.

The appeal was allowed, the sale order set aside, and the Receiver was directed to develop a proper sales process for the entire property.

This motion arose in a bankruptcy proceeding where the Trustee sought an order compelling a secured claimant to provide information regarding her claim and a direction to keep this information confidential from a foreign representative who had an indirect financial interest in the estate and was involved in collateral litigation against the claimant.

The claimant refused to provide the information without strict confidentiality, while the foreign representative sought to reserve rights to access it later.

The court declined to issue the requested directions, emphasizing that the Trustee should follow the statutory process for claim adjudication and that issues related to collateral litigation should be addressed in those separate proceedings.

The moving party, Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc., sought leave to appeal a distribution order from the Supervising Judge in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The order authorized a distribution to King Towns North Inc. (KTNI) related to the sale of "Bridge Geothermal Assets" and the interpretation of a "Transfer Provision" in a lease.

The core issue was whether the Transfer Provision violated the pari passu or anti-deprivation rules, particularly in light of Chandos Construction Ltd. v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc. The Supervising Judge found the provision valid, as it was triggered by a lease transfer, not insolvency, and did not violate the rules.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no prima facie meritorious issue or error in the Supervising Judge's application of the anti-deprivation rule as clarified in Chandos, and that the appeal would unduly hinder the proceedings.

This motion sought a stay pending leave to appeal an order authorizing the sale of a 51% interest in Downsview Homes Inc. (DHI) within ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The moving party, the Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc., argued the sale process should be postponed until a related arbitration regarding a disputed payment was resolved, fearing a chilling effect on potential bids.

The supervising judge had previously dismissed these concerns as speculative.

The Court of Appeal applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, finding the grounds for appeal weak, no irreparable harm to the moving party, and the balance of convenience favoring the respondents (the Monitor and Mattamy Homes Limited, the debtor-in-possession lender).

Consequently, the motion for a stay was dismissed.

The moving parties sought a stay pending appeal of a lower court's decision to permanently stay their underlying action in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens and forum selection clauses.

They also sought an order expediting the appeal.

The motion judge dismissed both requests, applying the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for stays pending appeal.

The court found that while the appeal raised a serious question, the moving parties failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The court also denied the request to expedite the appeal, finding no urgency.

The Trustee in bankruptcy sought court orders for access to the bankrupt's leased premises and an extension of the three-month period under s. 38(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act to elect to retain or assign the lease.

The Landlord opposed, arguing the Trustee had no right to access or assign the lease, and no legal basis existed to extend the period.

The court found that the Trustee, distinct from the Receiver, retained its rights under the CTA, including access for marketing the lease.

The court also held it had jurisdiction to extend the s. 38(2) period, not through inherent jurisdiction, but by applying s. 2 of Ontario Regulation 73/20 (the COVID-19 Suspension Order), which suspends periods for steps in proceedings.

The court granted a 90-day extension, subject to conditions regarding occupation rent, and ordered the parties to bear their own costs due to the mixed result.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal hearing related to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of Urbancorp Cumberland 2 GP Inc. and related entities.

The panel reviewed the costs requests from the appellants and respondents and found the amounts reasonable.

Specific costs were ordered to be paid out of the Estate of the Cumberland Group to the appellants (Toro Aluminum, Speedy Electrical, Dolvin Mechanical) and two respondents (Guy Gissin, Tarion Warranty Corporation).

The Monitor and the Attorney General of Ontario did not seek costs.

This appeal concerns the effectiveness of a statutory trust under s. 9(1) of Ontario's Construction Lien Act (CLA) in Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) insolvency proceedings.

Unpaid contractors (appellants) claimed a trust over proceeds from the sale of condominium units by the insolvent developer (Cumberland Group).

The motion judge denied the trust, relying on Re Veltri Metal Products Co., reasoning that the CCAA Monitor's involvement prevented the trust from arising.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, clarifying that a s. 9(1) CLA trust can be effective in CCAA sales processes and is only displaced by federal paramountcy if it conflicts with a specific CCAA priority.

The court distinguished Veltri, stating it did not prevent a s. 9(1) trust when proceeds exceed mortgage debt and expenses, and confirmed the "deemed receipt" rule.

The court addressed the issue of who should pay costs previously awarded after dismissing a motion brought by Bending Lake Iron Group Limited (BLIG).

The BLIG motion was deemed an abuse of process, a collateral attack on prior orders, and res judicata, with BLIG lacking standing due to its bankruptcy.

The court ordered that the costs be paid jointly and severally by BLIG's lawyer, Robert MacRae, and its directors and officers (Henry Grant Wetelainen, J. Chris Bailey, Dawn Elaine Mackay-Daynes, and Henry Clayton Wetelainen), citing the broad discretion under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for personal costs against lawyers.

The Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc. (UCI) moved to set aside the Monitor's disallowance of UCI's $6 million promissory note claim against Bay LP and sought a declaration confirming the validity of a companion $2 million note.

The notes were issued in connection with management fees and replaced an earlier $8 million note.

The court found that the notes were not independent obligations but were issued for tax purposes, and the underlying management fees had been paid through intercompany accounting entries.

The court rejected the argument that UCI was a holder in due course, noting that the notes were not intended to be binding and the assignees (UCI and Realtyco), controlled by the same individual, had actual notice of the intercompany affairs and payment status.

The motions were dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a receivership application, specifically motions to approve an asset purchase agreement and a cross-motion to postpone the sale.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Receiver due to unfounded allegations impugning its integrity.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the Secured Creditor and Legacy Hill Resources Ltd. The court declined to hold Mr. Wetelainen, a principal of the respondent, personally liable for costs, finding no evidence of fraud or abuse of the bankruptcy process for a wrongful collateral purpose, despite his breach of a prior order and the respondent's inability to pay.