Linc A. Rogers

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.

Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.

Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.

JTI-Macdonald Corp. (JTIM) sought an Initial Order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) following a $13.5 billion judgment from the Quebec Court of Appeal and other significant health care costs recovery actions.

The court granted the Initial Order, including a stay of proceedings against JTIM and other defendants, appointment of Deloitte Restructuring Inc. as Monitor, approval of administrative, directors', and tax charges, authorization to pay pre-filing and post-filing obligations, appointment of Blue Tree Advisors Inc. as Chief Restructuring Officer, and authorization to appeal the Quebec Judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court found JTIM to be an insolvent company to which the CCAA applies, and that a stay of proceedings was appropriate to facilitate a collective solution for all stakeholders.

The applicant, a major Canadian toy retailer, sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a liquidity crisis triggered by the bankruptcy filing of its US parent company.

The court granted the initial order, including a stay of proceedings to stabilize operations ahead of the holiday season.

The court also approved a debtor-in-possession (DIP) lending facility to replace existing secured debt and fund ongoing operations, while limiting the DIP lenders' enforcement rights to require court approval.

Provisions allowing the Monitor to pay pre-filing claims of critical suppliers and establishing charges for administration and directors/officers were also approved.

The Cetero Group brought a motion seeking entitlement to a $298,243 tax refund (carry-back refund) held by PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (PWC), as receiver of PRACS Institute Canada B.C. Ltd. The Cetero Group argued the refund was not validly assigned to PRACS, that PWC would be unjustly enriched, and that they were entitled to the refund through legal or equitable set-off due to PRACS's failure to pay under an operation support agreement.

The court found the carry-back refund was validly assigned to PRACS under an asset purchase agreement, providing a juristic reason for PWC's retention, thus defeating the unjust enrichment claim.

Furthermore, the court determined that neither legal nor equitable set-off applied, as the refund was not a debt owing by BA to PRACS, and the cross-claim for unpaid invoices was not sufficiently connected to the refund to warrant equitable set-off.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, Zochem Inc., applied under Part IV of the CCAA for recognition of First Day Orders made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chapter 11 proceedings.

The court found that the U.S. proceeding was a foreign main proceeding, as the debtors were managed as an integrated group from the United States, despite Zochem's operations being in Ontario.

The court also recognized the interim financing order and granted a super-priority charge for the DIP lender, noting that the interim advance was necessary to meet payroll and that the directors must act in the best interests of the Canadian corporation.

Following dismissal of a creditor’s motion seeking to compel a court‑appointed receiver to answer extensive questions and pay funds relating to a claim under s. 81.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court addressed the receiver’s entitlement to costs.

The responding creditor argued costs should await determination of a separate request to unseal confidential documents and contended it had achieved partial success.

The court rejected those submissions, holding the creditor had been entirely unsuccessful and that delaying costs would improperly leave their determination in the creditor’s control.

Finding the motion constituted an unwarranted fishing expedition that unnecessarily increased the receivership’s expenses, the court concluded the conduct was sufficiently improper to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The receiver’s costs were assessed at $23,236.76 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court heard two motions in a receivership proceeding.

The Receiver moved for its discharge and release from liability, having completed its mandate to close a sale transaction.

A creditor brought a motion to compel the Receiver to answer 114 questions, unseal confidential appendices, and pay out funds held in trust for its s. 81.1 claim.

The court dismissed the creditor's requests for answers and payment, finding the questions to be an unreasonable fishing expedition and the payment premature as the claim was not yet determined.

The request to unseal documents was adjourned to allow the affected party to respond.

The court granted the Receiver's discharge, finding no evidence of improper conduct.