L. Brzezinski

In the context of CCAA proceedings for U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), the applicant sought approval for Transition Arrangements with its parent company, a Business Preservation Plan involving significant cash conservation measures (including suspension of pension, OPEB, and municipal tax payments), and Amended DIP Financing.

The court approved the motions, finding that the Transition Arrangements were fair and reasonable, and that the Business Preservation Plan and DIP financing were necessary to allow USSC to continue operations and pursue a restructuring solution, despite objections from the union and municipalities regarding the suspension of benefits and taxes.

During a Commercial List case conference in complex commercial litigation, the court addressed whether a lengthy upcoming trial should proceed using paper records or an electronic trial format.

The court emphasized the need for the justice system to adapt to modern information technology and criticized resistance within the legal profession to electronic processes.

Considering the scale and document volume of the litigation, the court ordered that the six‑week trial proceed as an electronic trial and directed counsel to prepare and submit a formal e‑trial plan.

The endorsement also addressed discovery scheduling, settlements with certain defendants, and a proposed but abandoned summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs moved under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order permitting inspection of a biofuel production plant owned by a defendant corporation.

The plaintiffs argued the inspection would allow their experts to assess whether the plant was operational in connection with a forthcoming Mareva injunction motion and claims relating to allegedly fraudulent transactions designed to defeat enforcement of anticipated U.S. judgments.

The court held that inspection orders require necessity for the proper determination of an issue in dispute and must reveal something useful or probative for the trier of fact.

Because the operational status of the plant was not relevant to the plaintiffs’ pleaded claim that certain funds were used to acquire the plant, the inspection was not necessary and that part of the motion was dismissed.

However, the court ordered production of written documents referred to in an affidavit pursuant to Rule 30.04(2).