Lisa Susan Corne

A secured creditor applied for the appointment of a receiver over a group of integrated technology companies operating in Canada and the United States following defaults under a loan agreement and the expiry of a forbearance arrangement.

The creditor also sought approval of a stalking horse asset purchase agreement and sales process.

The court found the debtors insolvent and concluded that appointing a receiver under s. 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act was just and convenient, particularly to facilitate a cross-border restructuring and prevent fragmented enforcement actions by creditors.

Applying the principles governing receiver sales from Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corporation, the court approved the stalking horse process and sealed confidential commercial appendices containing sensitive information.

Orders appointing the receiver, approving the sales process, and sealing the confidential materials were granted.

In a receivership proceeding, the court considered a motion by a court-appointed receiver for approval of the sale of a condominium unit and a vesting order.

The court applied the principles from Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp., examining whether the receiver made sufficient efforts to obtain the best price, whether the process was fair and effective, and whether the interests of stakeholders were protected.

The court found that the receiver followed a previously approved marketing process and that the proposed purchase price exceeded comparable appraised values.

No interested party opposed the motion.

The sale was approved and a vesting order granted.

The appellant, Home Depot, appealed orders authorizing a receiver to sell a property free and clear of Home Depot's leasehold and equitable interests.

The motion judge had refused to draw inferences regarding whether the first mortgagee had impliedly consented to Home Depot's lease, stating he could only rely on undisputed facts.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by applying an incorrect standard of proof and failing to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the respondents initiated the proceedings and no issue requiring a trial.

Costs were fixed at $5,000.

The appellant law partnership, a creditor of a bankrupt management company, brought an action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act to set aside a transfer of assets to a related company.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding it was barred by the six-year limitation period in the Limitations Act or by the equitable doctrine of laches.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is neither an action on a simple contract nor an action upon the case, and thus is not caught by the six-year limitation period.

The Court also found a triable issue regarding whether the respondents suffered prejudice sufficient to establish the defence of laches.