Maria A. Konyukhova

In a CCAA restructuring involving a remote iron ore mining operation facing an immediate cash crisis before a narrow seasonal shipping window, the applicants sought approval of interim debtor-in-possession financing and a super-priority charge.

Competing secured creditor groups proposed rival DIP facilities, but the court approved the Crown lender’s DIP for the interim bridge period only, emphasizing the urgent need for operational stability, the monitor’s support, and the limited prejudice given the de novo rehearing scheduled within weeks.

The court added consultation, consent, and information protections to preserve a level playing field for the competing DIP proponents before the full return motion.

The stay of proceedings was extended, authority was granted to pay certain critical pre-filing suppliers with the monitor’s consent, and the sealing request was adjourned.

The Receiver brought a motion for an order requiring the debtor and its principal to pay $143,000 to the Receiver.

The funds represented the HST portion of a lease termination settlement paid to the debtor prior to the receivership.

The debtor argued the funds were not 'Property' under the receivership order because they were subject to a statutory deemed trust in favour of the CRA.

The court held that the funds arose from the debtor's real property and fell within the definition of 'Property'.

The court declared the funds must be paid to the Receiver, who would determine priorities in due course.

The Opposing Landlords sought costs after successfully opposing the debtor Applicants' motion to assign 25 commercial leases to a third party in a CCAA proceeding.

The court found that the dispute was a classic adversarial proceeding, entitling the successful landlords to costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the landlords, including additional costs to Ivanhoe Cambridge for opposing ipso facto relief.

However, the court deferred payment of the costs until the end of the CCAA proceeding to avoid unfairly prejudicing the secured creditors' collateral before priorities are finally determined.

In a landmark CCAA proceeding involving Hudson's Bay Company, the court declined to approve the assignment of 25 major retail department store leases across Canada to a new tenant, Ruby Liu Commercial Investment Corp., despite the transaction representing the highest bid and generating approximately $50 million in net proceeds for creditors.

The court found that the proposed assignee failed to meet the reasonableness standard under section 11.3(3) of the CCAA, particularly regarding its ability to perform the substantial and ongoing obligations under the leases.

The decision emphasizes that section 11.3 is an extraordinary power that must be exercised sparingly, and that the court must balance the interests of all stakeholders, including the contractual counterparties (landlords) who would be compelled into a long-term relationship with an untested and undercapitalized purchaser.

The court also rejected the applicants' arguments that certain lease provisions constituted ipso facto clauses violating the anti-deprivation rule and section 34 of the CCAA.

In this CCAA proceeding, the court granted multiple orders sought by Hudson's Bay Company and related entities, including approval of lease assignment agreements with YM Inc. and Ivanhoe Cambridge, sealing of confidential bid information, extension of the stay of proceedings to October 31, 2025, and approval of the Monitor's reports and activities.

The court rejected requests for adjournment and conditional distributions, finding the lease monetization process was fair and transparent, and that the proposed transactions represent a positive development for stakeholders.

This endorsement grants an unopposed application by RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust and related entities for the appointment of FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as receiver over the assets of the RioCan-HBC joint venture entities.

The court reviews the legal test for appointing a receiver under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, referencing relevant case law and statutory factors.

The receivership is found to be just and convenient in light of the joint venture’s financial distress, the failure of restructuring efforts, and the need to preserve and maximize value for stakeholders.

The order authorizes the receiver to borrow up to $20 million and provides for allocation of costs and a mechanism for secured lenders to terminate the receivership as to their collateral.

This decision approves four orders sought by the Applicants under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA): (1) approval of an asset purchase agreement (APA) with Canadian Tire Corporation for the sale of Hudson’s Bay’s intellectual property; (2) a sealing order for the confidential appendix summarizing bids; (3) termination of the stay of proceedings and CCAA proceedings for certain entities, concurrent with the appointment of a receiver; and (4) a declaration under the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA) to assist terminated employees.

The Court found the sale process fair and transparent, the consideration reasonable, and the relief unopposed and supported by the Monitor.

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

This decision grants a Confirmation Recognition and Termination Order in respect of Mitel Networks Corporation’s cross-border restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

The Court recognizes and enforces the US Confirmation Order, approves the restructuring plan, and terminates the Canadian recognition proceedings, finding the plan fair, reasonable, and consistent with Canadian public policy.

The Applicants sought approval of a Restructuring Framework Agreement (RFA) in ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The Court declined to approve the RFA, finding it neither necessary nor appropriate at this time.

The decision details the reasons for refusing approval, including concerns about the appropriateness of granting control and veto rights to the Lenders, the lack of disclosure of the Budget, and the sufficiency of existing court and Monitor oversight.

The Court also set out directions for ongoing cash flow monitoring and reporting by the Monitor.

This decision concerns the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities.

The Court addresses the extension of the stay of proceedings, approval of a liquidation sale, lease monetization process, and a sales and investment solicitation process (SISP).

The Court also considers the repayment of the DIP facility, approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP), and a sealing order for confidential employee information.

The Court grants most of the relief sought, defers approval of the Restructuring Support Agreement to allow further stakeholder review, and provides detailed reasons for each order.

This endorsement grants a brief adjournment in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities, following ongoing discussions between the applicants and stakeholders.

The court extends the stay of proceedings, increases the Directors’ Charge, amends the relative priorities of charges, and approves the engagement of Reflect Advisors, LLC as financial advisor.

The court finds the requested relief appropriate, unopposed, and supported by the Monitor, and orders the requested amendments to the Initial Order.

This decision grants initial relief under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities, including a stay of proceedings, approval of DIP financing, and various charges to facilitate restructuring.

The court reviews the history and financial distress of Hudson’s Bay, the legal standards for CCAA relief, and the appropriateness of extending the stay to non-applicant parties and co-tenants.

The judgment also addresses the maintenance of the cash management system, appointment of a monitor, and the criteria for administration and directors’ charges.

The court finds the relief sought is necessary and appropriate to stabilize operations and maximize value for stakeholders during the initial stay period.