Matilda Lici

The moving party sought review of a single-judge order dismissing its motion for an extension of time to appeal an order made in a receivership matter.

The court held that no error in principle, legal error, misapprehension of the evidence, or unreasonable result had been shown, and accepted that the motion judge properly considered all relevant circumstances, including prejudice and the conduct of the receivership.

The court also refused to admit proposed fresh evidence because it was not shown to have been unavailable through due diligence and would not have affected the result.

The review motion was dismissed with costs payable to the receiver.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied leave to appeal from an order appointing a receiver over the property of 11977636 Canada Inc. at the request of the Bank of Montreal.

The debtor argued that the application judge made a factual error regarding the closing date of a property sale, which allegedly affected the decision to refuse an adjournment and appoint a receiver.

The Court found that the error was not determinative, as the appointment was justified by the debtor’s lack of accountability and transparency.

None of the three "Pine Tree" considerations for granting leave to appeal under s. 193(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act were met.

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 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.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) applied for the appointment of a receiver over the respondents under section 129 of the Securities Act.

The parties sought directions from the court regarding non-disclosure obligations under sections 16 and 17 of the Act, particularly concerning the production and use of investigation materials.

The court endorsed a protocol allowing redacted and unredacted affidavits to be filed, balancing the need for confidentiality with the respondents’ right to make full answer and defence.

The court also addressed scheduling and adjournment of the application, confirming the interim monitorship and setting a new hearing date.

The DIP Agent sought the appointment of a non-possessory Receiver and approval of a Sale Solicitation Process (SSP) for iSpan Systems LP, which had filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal and subsequently defaulted on its Amended Proposal payments.

The motion also sought to suspend the Claims Adjudication Process and Mediation.

The court found the appointment of a receiver appropriate to maximize value for stakeholders, as bankruptcy would destroy much of the business's value.

The proposed SSP was approved, with the court deferring to the Receiver's recommendations on timeline and deposit amount, despite objections from two unsecured creditors regarding these terms.

The Claims Adjudication Process was also suspended.

The Business Development Bank of Canada (the bank) brought a motion to quash an appeal initiated by 170 Willowdale Investments Corp. (the appellant).

The appellant subsequently abandoned its appeal.

The court found that a contractual term between the parties entitled the bank to full indemnity costs.

Consequently, the bank was awarded its costs of the abandoned appeal in the amount of $19,791.95.

The applicant, Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), sought the appointment of a receiver for the respondent, 170 Willowdale Investments Corp., due to the respondent's default on a loan.

The respondent's principal, Mr. Zar, repeatedly requested adjournments and made unsubstantiated allegations of bias against the court and counsel.

The court denied the adjournment requests and the recusal motions, finding that the respondent had ample opportunity to respond and that the allegations were unfounded.

The court determined that it was just and convenient to appoint a receiver, given the clear and continuing default, the lack of engagement from the debtor, and the contractual right to appoint a receiver.

The application for the appointment of The Fuller Landau Group Inc. as receiver was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to answer undertakings regarding TD Bank account records.

The court found that the defendant had used her best efforts to obtain the requested information from the bank.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the plaintiff's appropriate remedy was to bring a Rule 30.10 motion against the bank directly.

The court also declined to order the defendant to bring the Rule 30.10 motion or to sign a direction permitting the plaintiff to interact with the bank.

The plaintiff property developer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendant purchasers to vacate a condominium townhouse and prevent their re-entry.

The defendants had taken interim occupancy but failed to close the transaction, refused to sign extension agreements, made unauthorized alterations to the unit, and engaged in abusive and harassing behaviour toward the plaintiff's staff.

The court granted the mandatory injunction, finding the defendants were trespassers, the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case, and the plaintiff was suffering irreparable harm to its property rights and reputation.