3 total
Brief BIA stay extension granted; SISP approval deferred pending stalking horse agreement.
An insolvent cannabis contract manufacturer filed a notice of intention to make a proposal under s. 50.4(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and sought orders approving DIP financing, a further stay extension, a SISP with a stalking horse bid, and related charges.
The court raised concerns about the SISP because the stalking horse agreement had not yet been executed, the milestones were abbreviated, the treatment of employees and contracts was uncertain, and a break fee was contemplated before any definitive agreement existed.
Following a standdown, the company abandoned pursuit of the full relief and requested only a brief stay extension to February 17, 2026.
The court was satisfied that the three-part test under s. 50.4(9) of the BIA was met and granted the short extension, finding no evidence of bad faith, no material prejudice to creditors, and sufficient liquidity for the brief period.
Appeal allowed; Board breached procedural fairness by qualifying witness as expert without notice to appellant.
The appellant, an operator of diagnostic imaging clinics, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the Minister's requirement to reimburse over $1.1 million in facility fees.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by classifying the Ministry's sole witness as a 'litigant's employee with expertise' without giving the appellant prior notice or an opportunity to make submissions and call reply evidence.
The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.
Judicial review of dental discipline decision dismissed; order for continuing education and caution upheld as reasonable.
The applicant, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board confirming an order of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).
The ICRC had ordered the applicant to complete a Specified Continuing Education Program and be cautioned after he erroneously extracted a healthy adult tooth from a minor patient instead of a supernumerary tooth.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision to uphold the ICRC's findings—including that the applicant should have taken additional steps to verify the correct tooth and that expert evidence was not required to interpret intraoperative x-rays—was reasonable and procedurally fair.
