Massimo Carmine Starnino

The appellant sought to enforce a Chilean arbitral award in Ontario against the respondent, a non-party to the arbitration, arguing the respondent assumed the judgment debtor's liabilities through an Italian spin-off agreement.

The motion judge stayed the enforcement application on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding that the threshold issue of liability must be determined first and that Italy was the clearly more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in severing liability from enforcement, applying the forum non conveniens doctrine, or granting a temporary stay pending the resolution of Italian proceedings.

The decision addresses two competing motions for the appointment of representative counsel for investors in a receivership proceeding involving Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court reviews the procedural background, the need for representative counsel, and the competing proposals from Aird & Berlis LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

The court ultimately appoints Aird & Berlis LLP as representative counsel, finding their approach and fee structure preferable for efficiency, transparency, and certainty.

The respondent, Webuild S.P.A., brought a motion to stay an application by Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana De Salud S.A. (SCMS) to enforce a Chilean arbitral award in Ontario.

The award was originally against Astaldi S.p.A., and SCMS sought to enforce it against Webuild, arguing Webuild assumed Astaldi's liabilities through an Italian restructuring proceeding.

Webuild contended that the threshold issue of liability assumption under Italian law should be determined in Italy.

The court granted Webuild's motion for a temporary stay, finding Italy to be the forum non conveniens for this complex issue, citing the need to avoid conflicting judgments and costly duplication of resources across multiple jurisdictions.

Representative Counsel for investor claimants in a winding-up proceeding sought approval of a $40 million settlement distribution scheme and $6 million in professional fees.

Two investors objected, arguing for a flat-fee allocation of costs rather than a pro rata deduction, and one objected to the fee amount.

The court approved the pro rata allocation as fair and equitable, noting it avoids arbitrary distinctions between investors.

The court also approved the $6 million fee, finding it reasonable given the significant risks assumed, the excellent results achieved, and the 1.6 multiplier on docketed time.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.

Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.

Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.

The applicants, JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., sought protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) following a $13.5 billion judgment from the Quebec Court of Appeal and other ongoing litigation.

JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. moved for orders to file Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) leave applications but suspend further proceedings.

Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited sought a blanket stay of all proceedings and limitation periods.

The Quebec class action plaintiffs opposed the motions and sought to partially lift the stay.

The court affirmed its broad jurisdiction under CCAA s. 11 to stay all actions, including appellate proceedings and limitation periods.

The court dismissed the motion by JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and granted Imperial Tobacco's motion, finding that a blanket stay best preserved the status quo and facilitated a global resolution for all stakeholders.

The Applicants, under CCAA protection, brought a motion seeking an order to authorize and approve the Revised Fourth DIP Amendment.

The motion was opposed by the USW and GIP.

The court granted the motion, finding that the DIP solicitation process was competitive, robust, and fair, and that the Revised Fourth DIP Amendment was the best available proposal.

The amendment addressed previous concerns by providing a maturity date past the winter build period, a sufficient commitment amount, and minimal conditions on covenants.

The Liquidator of Maple Bank GmbH's Canadian business sought an interim distribution of surplus funds to the German Insolvency Administrator (GIA) during winding-up proceedings.

The motion was unopposed.

The court approved the interim distribution, finding it appropriate given that adequate reserves were established to cover all proven and potential claims, ensuring no prejudice to Canadian creditors.

The court emphasized a broad, flexible interpretation of insolvency legislation and the policy of assisting foreign insolvency proceedings.

In the context of a CCAA proceeding, Port of Algoma Inc. (Portco) brought a motion seeking an order compelling the debtor, Essar Steel Algoma Inc., to make post-filing payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement and for an administrative charge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the Monitor was directed to commence an oppression proceeding regarding the underlying related party transactions.

The court also rejected Portco's renewed arguments under section 11.01(a) of the CCAA, noting they had been decided in a prior motion, and declined to lift the stay of proceedings, emphasizing that doing so would be contrary to the interests of the stakeholders and the restructuring process.

The United Steelworkers Local Union 2251, supported by USW Local 2724 and Essar Algoma retirees, brought a motion to qualify a "Subject Bidder" as a Phase II Bidder in a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The Subject Bidder had been disqualified by Essar Algoma, its Chief Restructuring Advisor, Financial Advisor, and the Monitor for failing to provide satisfactory evidence of financial capability to consummate a transaction.

The union argued it was not properly consulted in the disqualification decision and that it should have been allowed to meet with the Subject Bidder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the union's consultation rights under the Sale and Solicitation Process (SISP) did not extend to decisions on a bidder's financial capability, and that the court should not second-guess the business judgment of the CCAA applicants and their professionals.

The Nortel group of companies filed for insolvency protection across multiple jurisdictions.

Following the sale of Nortel's assets, approximately $7.3 billion was placed in escrow.

The trial judge ordered that these lockbox funds be allocated on a pro rata basis among the various debtor estates, finding that Nortel operated as a highly integrated multinational enterprise and that the master research and development agreement did not govern allocation upon insolvency.

Several parties sought leave to appeal under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals were not prima facie meritorious, did not raise issues of significance to the practice, and would unduly hinder the progress of the proceedings.

The moving party, United Steelworkers Union Local 2251, sought a stay of a CCAA judge's order establishing a summary process with condensed timelines for the resolution of grievance-related claims, pending its motion for leave to appeal.

The union argued the process altered the collective agreement contrary to s. 33 of the CCAA and that it would suffer irreparable harm due to the workload and deadlines.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no serious question to be determined as leave to appeal was unlikely to be granted, no irreparable harm as avenues for assistance existed, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicants' restructuring efforts.

In the context of CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought approval of a grievance claims procedure to resolve approximately 3,000 outstanding grievances.

USW Local 2251 opposed the motion, arguing that the CCAA stay did not apply to grievances, that imposing a new procedure impermissibly amended the collective agreement, and that staying the grievance process violated section 2(d) of the Charter.

The court granted the motion, holding that the CCAA permits staying grievance procedures and imposing a claims process, which does not constitute an amendment to the collective agreement.

The court also found no Charter violation and held that under the doctrine of paramountcy, the CCAA stay provisions prevail over the grievance arbitration requirements in the provincial Labour Relations Act.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought approval of a key employee retention plan (KERP) for 23 management employees and a related charge securing payment obligations.

Unions opposed the motion, arguing insufficient disclosure, excessive compensation, and lack of consultation.

The court held that s. 11 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act provides jurisdiction to approve a KERP and applied established factors including the importance of management continuity, support from the monitor and secured creditors, and the business judgment of the board.

Finding the participants critical to the restructuring and the process for establishing the KERP robust, the court approved the plan and associated charge.

The court also granted a sealing order over confidential information identifying participants and compensation amounts.

A bankruptcy trustee brought a motion under s. 163(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking to compel former directors and an officer of the bankrupt entities to attend examinations under oath and produce documents concerning the bankrupts’ affairs.

The respondents argued that because the trustee had already commenced a civil action relating to a dividend transaction, the trustee could not rely on the statutory examination power absent exceptional circumstances and should instead obtain information through discovery in the action.

The court held that the trustee’s statutory examination powers are broad and are not limited to exceptional circumstances where litigation has commenced.

The court found the examinations were necessary for the proper administration of the bankrupt estate and not merely a step in the civil action.

The respondents were ordered to attend examinations and produce documents, with portions relevant to the civil action to count as discoveries to avoid duplication.

Various parties brought motions seeking reconsideration or clarification of a prior joint allocation decision determining the distribution of $7.3 billion in escrow among debtor estates in multinational insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties argued that aspects of the allocation methodology—including treatment of bond guarantee claims, certain asset sale proceeds, intercompany claims, tax claims, and settled claims—required amendment or clarification.

The court reiterated that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and rejected most requests because the issues either had been addressed at trial or could have been raised earlier.

Limited clarification was granted regarding the treatment of bondholder claims against guarantors and recognition of certain court‑approved settled pre‑filing claims that had been paid.

Other requested clarifications or amendments were denied.

Invesco sought leave to appeal orders sanctioning a Plan of Compromise and Reorganization under the CCAA and approving a settlement that released Ernst & Young LLP from claims arising from its auditing of Sino-Forest Corporation.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals failed to meet the stringent test for leave in CCAA proceedings.

The appeal of the Sanction Order was moot, and the issues regarding the third-party release in the Settlement Order were governed by the court's prior decision in ATB Financial.