The appellants appealed an order interpreting Articles 5 and 8.09 of a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act plan of compromise.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's interpretation was reasonable, fostered a fair and efficient administration of the plan, and was entitled to deference given his familiarity with the complex negotiating process.
A claim for rectification advanced for the first time on appeal was also dismissed for lack of an evidentiary basis.
