Markus Koehnen

The plaintiffs, a grain elevator business and a seed business, sued their bank for refusing to advance funds to pay margin calls on their grain hedges.

The bank's refusal forced the plaintiffs to liquidate their hedges at a significant loss.

The plaintiffs argued the bank was required to give reasonable notice before refusing to advance funds, based on contract, negligence, and fiduciary duty.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs were in default of their loan agreements and overdrawn on their credit limits.

The court held that the bank had no contractual obligation to extend further credit, nor was there an implied term, duty of care, or fiduciary duty requiring the bank to provide reasonable notice before refusing to fund the margin calls.

The applicant, an Indigenous person, sought an urgent interim and interlocutory injunction to restrain the broadcast and display of the Cleveland Indians' team name and 'Chief Wahoo' logo during the American League Championship Series in Toronto, pending human rights complaints.

The court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the name and logo constituted discrimination in the provision of a service.

However, the court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, noting the delay in bringing the application, and found the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the material prejudice of last-minute broadcast and uniform changes.

In a CCAA restructuring proceeding, the moving parties (Cliffs) brought a motion objecting to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court to hear a dispute over a terminated iron ore supply contract.

Cliffs argued that the contract was governed by Ohio law and that Ohio was the convenient forum.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it had jurisdiction simpliciter because the contract was made in Ontario and Cliffs carried on business in Ontario.

Applying the single control model for insolvencies, the court held that the dispute should be resolved within the CCAA proceedings.

The court also found that Cliffs failed to establish that Ohio was clearly a more appropriate forum.

The plaintiffs brought a motion arising from a dispute over the conduct of examinations for discovery, specifically whether the plaintiff could attend the defendant’s discovery and the order in which discoveries should occur.

The action alleged misrepresentation and fraud relating to investments connected to speaking engagement events and an alleged IPO opportunity.

The court considered the principles governing exclusion of a party from attending an opposing party’s examination for discovery, including the requirement of “proper cause” and the risk of tailoring evidence where credibility is central.

Given evidence suggesting credibility would be a critical issue and concerns regarding potential tailoring of testimony, the court concluded that the interests of justice justified limiting attendance until one party had completed examination.

The plaintiff’s request to strike the defence and related relief was rejected, and directions were provided for how the discoveries should proceed.

In CCAA proceedings involving a mining company, competing motions were brought concerning the restructuring process.

The debtor sought directions regarding the procedure for resolving noteholder claims and the alleged misuse of confidential information by certain creditors, while the noteholders sought an order convening a meeting of creditors to vote on their proposed plan of arrangement.

The court held that calling a creditors’ meeting was premature because the proposed plan conflicted with the debtor-in-possession financing facility, had been introduced without meaningful consultation, and unresolved claims and litigation issues could affect voting rights and recoveries.

The court dismissed the noteholders’ motion without prejudice and declined to order disclosure sought by the debtor.

The stay of proceedings was extended to facilitate continued negotiations and mediation.

In CCAA proceedings, the debtor sought approval of a claims procedure order establishing a process for identifying and determining claims against the company and its current and former officers and directors.

Noteholders opposed aspects of the proposed order, including provisions granting the debtor broad set‑off rights, the absence of creditor consent for large claims, and the ability to appoint a claims officer without court approval.

The court held that creditors should not have a veto over claims exceeding $100,000 but ordered a compromise requiring notice to stakeholders before acceptance of claims exceeding approximately $2.5 million.

The court further ruled that proposed set‑off provisions improperly affected substantive rights and should not appear in a claims procedure order.

The draft order was required to remove those provisions and to provide that appointment of a claims officer requires court approval.

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings, the debtor sought approval of a debtor-in-possession financing facility, an extension of the stay of proceedings, approval of a management incentive plan, and approval of the monitor’s actions.

Certain noteholders opposed the proposed financing and incentive plan and proposed an alternative short-term DIP facility intended to maintain the status quo pending negotiation of a restructuring plan.

The court held that the debtor’s board had exercised reasonable business judgment after a competitive process and that the proposed financing satisfied the statutory considerations under s. 11.2 of the CCAA.

The court rejected the argument that the DIP facility constituted a de facto plan of arrangement requiring creditor approval and found the alternative financing proposal tactical and inconsistent with market conditions.

The management incentive plan was also approved as reasonable and necessary to retain key personnel responsible for pursuing a significant international arbitration claim forming the debtor’s primary asset.

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings, the debtor sought approval of short‑term bridge financing pending a larger DIP financing facility.

Competing bridge financing proposals were advanced by an existing lender and by noteholders.

The court approved the debtor’s preferred proposal despite it being more expensive, holding that the board’s decision was protected by the business judgment rule and was supported by the debtor’s financial advisor and the monitor.

A cross‑motion by noteholders seeking revisions to the DIP auction procedures and exemption from signing a non‑disclosure agreement was largely dismissed, though the deadline for qualification as a bidder was briefly extended.