Mark Evans

The debtor applicants sought court approval for a pre-packaged sale ('quick flip') of their assets to a new company owned by existing management, pursuant to section 36 of the CCAA.

The proposed transaction was supported by the senior secured creditor but opposed by a subordinate secured creditor, BDC Capital Inc., who was excluded from the sales process and given minimal notice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the debtor failed to meet its burden under sections 36(3) and 36(4) of the CCAA.

The court held that the sales process lacked transparency, failed to make good faith efforts to sell to unrelated parties after the senior debt was purchased at a discount, and did not demonstrate that the proposed consideration was superior to other potential offers.

The appellant, a former lawyer, sued the respondent banks for freezing his accounts after he was charged with money laundering and fraud.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action and awarded $225,000 in substantial indemnity costs against the appellant.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial despite the respondents' delay in bringing the motion.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs award, reducing it to $175,000 on the basis that the unaccepted settlement offer should not have elevated costs incurred prior to the offer being made.

The accused was tried on an allegation of operating or having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug after being found twice the same evening asleep or unresponsive in a parked vehicle with the engine running.

The Crown relied heavily on a drug recognition expert opinion and urinalysis results engaging the presumptions in s. 320.31(6) of the Criminal Code.

The court accepted much of the accused's evidence regarding anxiety, physical limitations, fatigue, and earlier drug use, and found significant frailties in the DRE evidence, including the absence of video, inconsistent handling of personal characteristics, and ambiguous test indicators.

Applying W.(D.), the court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either impairment of the ability to operate a conveyance or that any impairment was caused by alcohol or a drug.

The accused was acquitted.

The appellant appealed a ruling and requested a hearing regarding a proposed order to suspend his standardbred license for one year or until a US criminal indictment against him was resolved.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the proposed order, finding the Director had reasonable grounds to conclude the appellant would not act with honesty and integrity in the public interest, given the charges related to ephedrine and the use of a barn for its storage.