André Claude

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable within 30 days.

Laurentian University brought an unopposed motion within its CCAA proceedings for an order extending the stay period to September 30, 2022, and an order approving a Pension Participation Agreement with the University of Sudbury.

The court found that the applicant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, justifying the stay extension.

The court also approved the pension agreement, finding it to be a fair and reasonable settlement that provided substantial benefits to stakeholders and was consistent with the purpose of the CCAA.

In the context of Laurentian University's CCAA proceedings, a former student (BR) and the University of Sudbury sought to lift the stay of proceedings to pursue civil litigation regarding historical sexual assault allegations.

BR argued that her claim was exempt from the CCAA claims process under s. 19(2)(b)(i), which exempts awards of damages for sexual assault.

The court dismissed the motions, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Montreal (City) v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc. to hold that the s. 19(2) exception must be interpreted narrowly and only applies once an award of damages has actually been established.

Consequently, the claims must be determined within the CCAA Claims Process.

The garnishee brought a motion to reinstate its appeal of an associate judge's order, which had been struck by the registrar for failure to file a motion confirmation form.

The creditor brought a cross-motion to strike the garnishee's affidavit and for judgment.

The court found that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not clearly require a motion confirmation form for an appeal of an interlocutory order of an associate judge, and the creditor should have consented to the reinstatement.

The court granted the motion to reinstate the appeal and dismissed the creditor's motion.

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.

The applicant, Laurentian University, brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings to extend the stay of proceedings, approve an amendment to its DIP facility increasing the available funds by $10 million, and approve settlement agreements with its faculty association, staff union, and Huntington University.

The court found that the applicant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, making significant progress in its restructuring.

Despite opposition from Thorneloe University and the University of Sudbury regarding the DIP amendment, the court approved the requested relief, finding the DIP conditions reasonable and the extension necessary for the applicant's continued operations and restructuring efforts.

The University of Sudbury brought a motion to set aside a Notice of Disclaimer issued by Laurentian University under section 32 of the CCAA.

Laurentian University sought to disclaim the Federation Agreements with its federated universities as part of its financial restructuring.

The moving party argued the disclaimer was issued in bad faith, would cause significant financial hardship, and would negatively impact French language rights.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no bad faith, insufficient evidence of significant financial hardship to outweigh the restructuring needs, and noting that the moving party had already resolved to become an independent francophone university.

The court concluded the disclaimer was necessary for Laurentian University to present a viable plan to its creditors and avoid bankruptcy.

Two equal shareholder brothers in a family construction group became deadlocked after one withdrew from active management due to illness and sought to realize the value of his shares.

The court found a fundamental and irreparable deadlock in the management of the corporations under the oppression and winding‑up provisions of corporate statutes.

Competing valuation reports were rejected in part, with the court determining fair value by adjusting one report and rejecting assumptions that the operating company lacked viability.

The court ordered a forced buy‑out requiring the remaining shareholder to purchase the other’s shares at a court‑determined fair value.

Payment terms were structured to balance the retiring shareholder’s need for compensation with the company’s operational viability.

A corporate shareholder and director sought leave to be added as a party to litigation involving a company and its bank concerning enforcement of a banking resolution adopted at an annual general meeting.

The court considered Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found the proposed party had a direct personal and corporate interest in the proceeding and could be adversely affected by the outcome.

The court determined that the annual meeting lacked quorum and that the resulting corporate resolutions, including a banking resolution altering signing authority, were invalid.

The court dismissed the company’s injunction motion seeking to enforce the resolution and granted relief requiring disclosure of financial information to the added party under oppression principles in the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The appellant, a parent and former school volunteer, appealed an order striking his statement of claim against the school board and various officials.

The claim alleged negligence, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and misfeasance in public office arising from a ban restricting his access to school property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence claims, finding no duty of care was owed.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the appellant had sufficiently pleaded the elements of misfeasance in public office against the school principals, superintendents, and the board, by alleging the ban was continued for the improper purpose of deliberately harming him.

The appellant Crown appealed a declaration that the respondent, Regulvar Ontario, was not a 'person resident in a designated jurisdiction' under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act.

The Act restricts construction access for corporations controlled directly or indirectly by residents of Quebec.

Regulvar Quebec owned 30% of Regulvar Ontario's shares, with the rest held by individuals who were directors or officers of Regulvar Quebec.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's use of the de jure control test, finding that Regulvar Quebec did not have the ability to elect the majority of the board of directors.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a decision declaring that Regulvar Ontario was not a 'person resident in a designated jurisdiction' under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act (Construction Labour Mobility), 1999.

The Act restricted access to construction jobs in Ontario for persons resident in Quebec.

Regulvar Ontario's head office was in Ontario, but 30% of its shares were held by Regulvar Quebec.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's use of the de jure control test from Duha Printers, finding that Regulvar Quebec did not control Regulvar Ontario directly or indirectly.

The appeal was dismissed.