Michael McGraw

The debtor company in CCAA proceedings brought a motion seeking a declaration that two Occupational Health and Safety Act prosecutions commenced by the provincial labour ministry were stayed by the CCAA initial order, or alternatively that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 11.1(4) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

The debtor argued that any conviction would result only in monetary fines, rendering the ministry a creditor whose claim should be addressed within the insolvency process.

The court held that regulatory prosecutions are not equivalent to creditor enforcement where no monetary obligation has yet crystallized and the regulator is acting in a prosecutorial capacity.

Applying the Supreme Court’s test for regulatory claims under insolvency legislation, the court concluded that the ministry was not acting as a creditor and that the proceedings remained regulatory in nature.

The motion to declare the prosecutions stayed was therefore dismissed.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy sought an order under s. 164 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act compelling the former Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO) and a secured creditor to produce documents.

The respondents claimed solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the documents.

The Trustee argued that the CRO could not assert privilege against the Trustee and that any common interest privilege was dissolved upon the CRO's appointment.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the CRO could assert privilege regarding its specific duties and that the common interest privilege between the secured creditor and the CRO (acting as a consultant prior to appointment) was not dissolved.

The plaintiff sought a costs award following earlier proceedings against multiple defendants in a financial dispute.

The court reviewed the plaintiff’s submitted costs outline and determined that a lump‑sum costs award was appropriate.

Costs were fixed at $60,000 all‑inclusive.

The court ordered the amount to be apportioned equally among four defendants who were subject to the judgment.

On an unopposed insolvency motion under Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the moving parties sought sanction of an amended consolidated proposal with substantive consolidation and a broad third-party release.

The court applied the section 59(2) reasonableness-and-benefit test, considered good faith and creditor voting support, and accepted that the proposal met statutory requirements.

The court held that third-party releases were permissible in the circumstances and interpreted the statute harmoniously with restructuring principles applied under related insolvency legislation.

Applying the Metcalfe criteria, the court found the release was necessary, supported by tangible contributions, and beneficial to creditors generally compared with bankruptcy alternatives.

The sanction order was granted.

The plaintiff insurer brought a motion for summary judgment against several individual defendants who had guaranteed corporate debts or received commissions under producer contracts.

The claims arose from insurance policy commission charge backs after policies lapsed or were terminated within the first two years.

The court found the defendants provided no evidentiary response beyond filing statements of defence and that the plaintiff’s documentary evidence of guarantees and contractual indebtedness was uncontradicted.

Summary judgment was granted for amounts owed under personal guarantees and producer contracts, including pre- and post-judgment interest.

Damages were awarded against the guarantors and producers for the outstanding commission charge backs and guaranteed corporate debts.