23 total
CBCA arrangement approved as fair and reasonable despite shareholder opposition; sealing order granted for confidential bids.
The applicants sought a final order approving a proposed arrangement under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act to effect a recapitalization transaction.
A group of Class B shareholders opposed the arrangement, arguing the dilution of existing shareholders to 1% of new shares was unfair.
The court found the arrangement was put forward in good faith, had a valid business purpose, and was fair and reasonable given the company's financial distress and the lack of viable alternatives other than CCAA proceedings.
The court also granted a sealing order over confidential exhibits containing third-party bids, finding disclosure would pose a serious risk to important commercial interests.
Court approves CCAA Monitor's distribution but refuses to grant blanket exemptions from statutory tax liabilities.
The Monitor in a liquidating CCAA proceeding sought approval of its fees, a distribution to unsecured creditors, an extension of the stay of proceedings, and an order exempting it from tax and withholding obligations under various federal and provincial statutes.
The court approved the fees, distribution, and stay extension.
However, the court declined to grant the tax exemptions, finding no basis in law or evidence to declare that the Monitor is not a 'representative' or is not 'distributing' funds under the tax statutes, especially without notice to the relevant taxation authorities.
The court granted a preliminary interim order and stay of proceedings under the CBCA to allow Corus Entertainment to finalize a complex recapitalization transaction.
Corus Entertainment Inc. and 17311737 Canada Inc. sought and obtained a preliminary interim order in connection with a proposed arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
The court granted a stay of rights and remedies against the Corus Entities until December 18, 2025, to provide breathing space for the applicants to finalize definitive documentation for a recapitalization transaction.
The transaction is designed to significantly reduce the company's debt and annual cash interest costs while extending maturity dates.
The applicants demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements and good faith in pursuing the arrangement following a formal strategic review.
The stay does not affect obligations to trade creditors, suppliers, customers, or employees.
The court approved unprecedented class counsel fees totaling over $900 million in the tobacco insolvency proceedings.
This decision concerns three motions to approve class counsel fees in the context of insolvency proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act involving three major tobacco companies.
The court approved the Quebec Class Action Plaintiffs' counsel fee request of approximately $901 million (representing 22% of the $4.119 billion allocated to the Quebec class members), the Knight Class Counsel fee request of $5 million plus disbursements, and the Tobacco Producers' counsel fee request of $3.75 million.
The court found that the fees were fair and reasonable given the exceptional risks assumed, the unprecedented outcome achieved, and the unique circumstances of the case.
A $50 million reserve was established from the Quebec counsel fees to protect against any pro-rata reduction in class member compensation due to actual take-up rates or other factors.
The court approved a pension surplus sharing agreement and extended the stay of proceedings in a CCAA matter.
The Court-appointed Monitor sought approval of a Surplus Sharing Agreement between DCL Corporation and Representative Counsel regarding the allocation of surplus funds in the Applicant's Salaried and Hourly Defined Benefit Pension Plans.
The Monitor also sought a declaration that the Applicant is entitled to the surplus under section 79(3)(b) of the Pension Benefits Act and an extension of the stay of proceedings to January 31, 2026.
The relief was unopposed and strongly supported by Representative Counsel.
The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable, and granted the requested stay extension.
The court sanctioned the CCAA plans of major tobacco companies to effect a global settlement.
This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.
The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.
The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.
The court granted an unopposed motion to approve a notice protocol order for class action plaintiffs.
This endorsement concerns ongoing insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) involving JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The specific motion, brought by the applicants, sought a Quebec Class Action Plaintiffs Notice Protocol Order.
The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with the requested order signed.
The court granted an unopposed motion for a Sanction Protocol Order in ongoing CCAA proceedings.
This endorsement concerns a joint motion brought by the court-appointed Monitors for JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. in their ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The Monitors sought a Sanction Protocol Order to establish the date for the Sanction Hearing, ratify the litigation timetable, approve the dissemination of the Agenda and Sanction Hearing procedure, approve the Omnibus Sanction Hearing Notice, and set the deadline for Sanction Hearing Objection Notices.
The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with three orders signed.
The court confirmed that notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders were reasonable.
This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.
The court granted Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders to advance a $32.5 billion global settlement of tobacco claims under the CCAA.
The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.
These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.
The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.
The Court upheld the summary dismissal of a meritless defamation action and substantial costs award.
The appellant, a lawyer and former senior advisor to the Kenyan Prime Minister, appealed the dismissal of his defamation and breach of privacy action against Refinitiv Limited and Sitel Operating Corporation.
The action stemmed from his inclusion as a politically exposed person (PEP) in Refinitiv's World-Check Database, which allegedly led to a money transfer being held, and subsequent alleged defamatory statements by a Sitel customer service agent.
The motion judge had dismissed the action, finding the appellant was properly classified as a PEP, the database statements were true and publicly sourced, and any claims against Sitel were covered by a prior release or lacked evidence of defamation.
The motion judge also awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the appellant's unreasonable litigation conduct.
The Court of Appeal found no factual or legal errors in the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the claim was meritless and upholding the costs award.
Capital Markets Tribunal imposes market participation bans, administrative penalties, and costs for illegal tipping and insider trading.
The Ontario Securities Commission sought sanctions and costs against Michael Paul Kraft and Michael Brian Stein following a merits decision that found Kraft engaged in illegal tipping and Stein in insider trading.
The Capital Markets Tribunal ordered market participation bans, administrative penalties, disgorgement, and costs against both respondents.
Kraft was ordered to pay a $200,000 administrative penalty and $150,000 in costs, and was subject to four-year director and officer bans and three-year trading bans.
Stein was ordered to pay a $150,000 administrative penalty, disgorge $29,345, and pay $50,000 in costs, and was subject to three-year director and officer bans and four-year trading bans.
The Tribunal also addressed a preliminary issue regarding the confidentiality of Stein's medical records.
The court granted unopposed motions extending the CCAA stay period and authorizing ancillary operational relief for the applicant tobacco companies.
This endorsement concerns three tobacco companies (JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) operating under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
Each applicant sought an extension of their stay period until September 30, 2024, to continue formulating plans of arrangement.
Imperial also requested authorization to terminate a retirement plan and post security for a vaping product license.
RBH sought a procedural amendment for employee grievances.
The court, finding no opposition and satisfied with the applicants' good faith, diligence, and sufficient resources, granted all requested relief, noting significant progress in ongoing mediation.
Summary judgment granted dismissing a defamation and breach of privacy action regarding a politically exposed person database.
The defendants, Refinitiv Limited and Sitel Operating Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for defamation and breach of privacy.
The plaintiff, a former senior advisor to the Kenyan prime minister, alleged wrongful inclusion in Refinitiv's World-Check Database as a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) and defamatory statements by Sitel's customer service.
The court found that the statements in the database were true in substance and fact, thus upholding the defence of justification.
It also determined there was no breach of privacy as the information was from public sources.
The claims against Sitel were dismissed as the alleged defamatory statements were covered by a prior release, lacked evidence of defamation, and were based on true information from the database.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's action in its entirety and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants due to the plaintiff's unreasonable litigation conduct and voluminous, unnecessary evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed two repetitive actions against a bank as an abuse of process.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of two separate actions (2017 and 2020) against the Bank of Nova Scotia and its officers/employees.
The 2017 action was dismissed for inadequate pleadings and as an abuse of process.
The 2020 action was dismissed as a replication of the 2018 dismissed action and an abuse of process.
The appellant also raised an argument of reasonable apprehension of bias against the motion judge in the 2017 action due to a past partnership.
The Court of Appeal upheld both dismissals, finding no error in the motion judges' analyses, including the rejection of the bias argument, and dismissed both appeals with costs to the respondent.
The court granted an unopposed stay extension in complex CCAA proceedings and directed the Monitors and Mediator to collaboratively develop plans of arrangement.
This endorsement concerns the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted an unopposed motion to extend the stay period until March 29, 2024.
Recognizing the complexity and the four-and-a-half-year duration of negotiations, the court directed the three court-appointed Monitors, in conjunction with the court-appointed Mediator, to collaborate and develop comprehensive Plans of Compromise or Arrangement.
The objective is to finalize plans that are fair and reasonable to all applicants and creditors, moving from observable activity to meaningful action.
The court extended the CCAA stay period and approved third-party releases for the employee trust.
The Applicants, Nordstrom Canada Retail, Inc., Nordstrom Canada Holdings, LLC, and Nordstrom Canada Holdings II, LLC, brought a motion under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) seeking an extension of the Stay Period, approval for the wind-up and termination of the Employee Trust with related releases, and the discharge of the KERP charge.
The court granted the motion, finding that the Applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that the requested releases for the Employee Trust Released Parties were appropriate given their contribution to the orderly wind-down.
There was no opposition to the motion.
The court granted an Amended and Restated Initial Order extending the CCAA stay and approving a key employee retention plan.
The Applicants, Nordstrom Canada Retail, Inc. and related entities, sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order (AIRO) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
The motion, unopposed and supported by the Monitor, requested an extension of the stay period, approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) and its associated charge, and increases to the Administration and Directors' Charges.
The court granted the AIRO, finding the stay extension appropriate given the applicants' good faith and diligence in pursuing an orderly wind-down, the KERP reasonable and necessary for restructuring, and the charge increases modest and well-supported.
The court granted an initial CCAA order, including a stay of proceedings and related relief, to facilitate the orderly wind-down of Nordstrom Canada's operations.
The applicants, Nordstrom Canada Retail, Inc., Nordstrom Canada Holdings Inc., LLC, and Nordstrom Canada Holdings II, LLC, sought an initial order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for a stay of proceedings to facilitate an orderly wind-down of their Canadian operations.
Nordstrom Canada, a subsidiary of Nordstrom US, had incurred significant losses and Nordstrom US had ceased financial support.
The court granted the requested relief, including a 10-day stay of proceedings, extension of the stay to Nordstrom Canada Leasing LP and, for limited purposes, to Nordstrom US (Parent Stay), approval of an Employee Trust funded by Nordstrom US, appointment of Employee Representative Counsel, and authorization for certain pre-filing payments to critical suppliers.
The court also approved Administration and Directors' and Officers' charges.
Subcontractor's procurement fairness claim dismissed as statute-barred and lacking a Contract A.
The plaintiff, Canada Forgings Inc. (CanForge), sued Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) alleging breach of a duty of fairness in a procurement process for nuclear reactor components.
CanForge claimed AECL unfairly favored a competitor, Patriot Forge Co., for end fitting forgings for the Bruce and Lepreau projects.
The court dismissed CanForge's claim on two primary grounds: first, it was statute-barred as the claim was discoverable more than two years before it was formally added to the Statement of Claim; second, no Contract A existed between CanForge and AECL, meaning no implied duty of fairness was owed to CanForge as a subcontractor.
The court also assessed damages hypothetically, finding no lost profits even if the claim had succeeded.