Kyla Edith May Mahar

HPI Advisory Inc., as the court-appointed Liquidator and Marketing and Mortgage Agent (MMA) of Morrison Laurier Mortgage Corporation (the "Company"), moved for an approval and vesting order for the sale of the "Lakeview Centre" property, and an ancillary order to seal a confidential appendix to its Fourth Report.

The Company is a mortgage investment corporation undergoing winding up.

The motion was unopposed.

The court granted the approval and vesting order, finding that the MMA had satisfied the "Soundair Principles" by making sufficient efforts to obtain the best price and conducting a fair sales process.

The court also approved the MMA's activities as described in the Fourth Report.

A sealing order for the confidential appendix was granted, limited in scope and time, to protect commercially sensitive information and ensure the integrity of the sales process, satisfying the factors from Sierra Club as refined in Sherman Estate.

The Court-appointed liquidator of Morrison Laurier Mortgage Corporation sought approval for the sale of the Corporation's last non-cash asset, an office building.

The motion was opposed by a preferred shareholder who proposed an alternative transaction involving share redemption.

The court granted the liquidator's motion, affirming the deference owed to a liquidator's business judgment and the integrity of the court-approved sales process.

The court found the alternative proposal was not properly submitted within the process and lacked sufficient detail and financial backing.

The applicants, a group of companies under CCAA protection, brought a motion seeking court approval for an Exclusive Sales Listing Agreement, an Auction Services Agreement, and a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) with a priority charge.

They also requested an extension of the stay of proceedings from June 2, 2023, to October 31, 2023, to facilitate an orderly wind-down of the business.

The motion was unopposed, and both the Monitor and the DIP Lender supported the requested relief.

The court found all requested relief appropriate and granted the motion.

The applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought an amended and restated initial order to extend the stay of proceedings, increase authorized borrowings under the DIP Term Sheet, and increase the Administration and Directors' Charges.

They also sought approval for an asset sale transaction (Pinnrz Transaction).

The Monitor supported the relief, and no party opposed.

The court granted all requested relief, finding the extension reasonable, the increased borrowings justified under CCAA s. 11.2(4), the increased charges approved under CCAA ss. 11.51 and 11.52, and the sale transaction approved under CCAA s. 36(3) and the Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp. test.

The Phoena Group, a cannabis producer and distributor, applied for an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to insolvency and a severe liquidity crisis.

The application sought a stay of proceedings, appointment of Ernst & Young Inc. as Monitor, appointment of Darren Karasiuk as Chief Restructuring Advisor, and approval of an Administration Charge, DIP financing with a related charge, and a Directors' Charge.

The court granted all requested relief, finding the applicants met the criteria as "debtor companies" under the CCAA and that the proposed measures were necessary for an orderly wind-down and liquidation of assets in the best interests of stakeholders.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

A family-owned meat processing business went bankrupt, terminating approximately 800 employees.

Two representative actions were commenced: one by Sam Caetano for unionized employees and another by Debbie and Alex Abreu for non-unionized employees, alleging wrongful dismissal, common employment, conspiracy, and oppression against solvent related companies and individuals.

The defendants brought motions to stay the Caetano action for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss both representative actions as time-barred.

The court granted the jurisdiction motion, staying the Caetano action entirely, finding that claims by unionized employees under a collective agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour tribunals.

The court also granted in part the limitations motion, dismissing the Caetano representative action as time-barred because the required Rule 12.08 representation order was not obtained prior to commencement.

However, the Abreu representative action, brought under Rule 10.01, was found not to be time-barred, but was allowed to proceed only on the condition that the plaintiffs forthwith obtain a representation order.

The Receiver brought a motion seeking a determination on whether the estates of Redstone Investment Corporation (RIC), Redstone Capital Corporation (RCC), and 1710814 Ontario Inc. o/a Redstone Management Services (RMS) should be substantively consolidated.

RIC and RMS Investors argued for consolidation, while RCC Investors opposed it, citing a General Security Agreement (GSA) granting RCC priority over RIC's assets.

The court found the founder's (Mr. So) evidence unreliable and dismissed subjective investor state of mind as irrelevant to the consolidation analysis.

Applying the Northland factors, the court determined that the elements of consolidation were not present, as assets were segregable, financial statements were separate, and significant prejudice would result to RCC Investors if consolidation were ordered.

The motion for substantive consolidation was denied.

Following dismissal of a motion brought by a creditor in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceeding, the applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that references to possible fraud during submissions and cross‑examination did not amount to pleaded or proven allegations warranting elevated costs.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs based on rates derived from the Costs Subcommittee practice direction with inflation adjustments.

The court noted that the recommended rates in the practice direction were outdated and unrealistic for major Toronto litigation but nevertheless accepted the claimed partial indemnity rates as reasonable in the circumstances.

Costs were awarded to the applicants in the amount claimed.

In CCAA proceedings involving shipping companies, the court addressed issues arising from a Claims Process Order and a referee’s report adjudicating maritime claims.

The court held that the referee was best positioned to determine entitlement to costs arising from the claims adjudication and directed that the referee address costs in accordance with the draft order.

The court declined to restrict cost submissions to certain claimants, holding that all claimants should be on equal footing.

A request to reconsider the referee’s decision or to receive further evidence was premature because no formal motion had been served.

The referee’s report was confirmed, the monitor’s eighth report was approved, and the monitor was discharged subject to conditions.