Michael E. Barrack

The court addressed two pretrial motions: one seeking to stay a counterclaim based on abuse of process due to delayed disclosure of a cooperation agreement, and another seeking leave for third-party discovery.

The motion to stay was dismissed, as the immediate disclosure rule for settlement agreements was found not to apply to agreements with non-parties.

The motion for third-party discovery was granted, with the court finding the non-party's evidence critical and that the cooperation agreement constituted a constructive refusal to provide information, making a pretrial examination necessary for trial fairness.

The defendants in two related actions sought orders to compel the plaintiffs, Andrew Stronach and Selena Stronach, to undergo medical examinations to assess their mental capacities for the purpose of determining if litigation guardians were required.

The court dismissed the motion against Selena Stronach, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

The motion against Andrew Stronach was dismissed without prejudice, as the court found it premature and suggested other discovery avenues should be pursued first.

The court also declined to order production of video recordings of Andrew's examination for discovery.

An appeal from a costs order against Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) as a non-party funder in a family law dispute.

The application judge found that LAO engaged in an abuse of process by failing to adequately monitor and assess the merits of the defence it was funding in a case involving a vulnerable individual.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the costs award, holding that LAO's role as a statutory funder does not expose it to non-party costs awards absent evidence of bad faith or improper purpose, and that requiring LAO to monitor litigation would impermissibly invade solicitor-client privilege and frustrate the statutory legal aid scheme.

Catalyst Capital Group Inc. attempted to acquire VimpelCom Ltd.'s interest in Wind Mobile Corp. but negotiations failed.

During negotiations, a junior analyst employed by Catalyst left to work for West Face Capital Inc., a member of a consortium that subsequently acquired Wind.

Catalyst sued the former employee and West Face for breach of confidence and other claims (the Moyse Action).

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that no confidential information was communicated and that Catalyst suffered no detriment because its own refusal to agree to a break fee and its insistence on regulatory concessions made the deal impossible.

Catalyst then commenced a second action against the consortium members and others alleging breach of confidence, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the second action as barred by issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Catalyst was attempting to relitigate factual findings from the first action and that it could have advanced all claims in the first proceeding.

The applicants sought a declaration that the respondent's proposed mandatory conversion of outstanding convertible preferred shares would contravene its Articles of Continuance.

The central issue was the interpretation of the "Liquidity Condition" within the Mandatory Conversion Provision, specifically whether the average daily trading volume should be restricted to the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) alone or include all trading reported in the TSX Composite index (which aggregates trading from TSX and alternative trading platforms).

The court, applying principles of statutory and contractual interpretation, found that the Liquidity Condition should include all transactions reported in the TSX Composite, thereby dismissing the applicants' request for a declaration and their related oppression claim.

The Monitor in the CCAA proceedings of Nortel Networks Corporation brought a motion to pass its accounts and those of its legal counsel for the period from January 2009 to May 2016.

The fees sought totaled over $250 million CAD and USD combined.

The court applied the Belyea factors to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the fees.

Despite the unprecedented size of the fees, the court found them justified given the massive scale, complexity, and duration of the cross-border insolvency, the extraordinary powers granted to the Monitor, and the highly successful results achieved for the Canadian estate.

The accounts were approved in full.

In a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding, the applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc., sought an extension of the stay of proceedings, authorization and approval of a second amending and extension agreement for DIP financing, and approval of a second key employee retention plan (KERP).

United States Steel Corporation (USS) sought a shorter stay period.

The court granted the applicant's motion to extend the stay of proceedings to November 30, 2016, finding the applicant acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that a shorter, court-imposed deadline was not necessary or useful at that time.

The court also authorized and approved the Second Extension Agreement for DIP financing, noting its importance as a cash buffer and for maintaining business stability.

Motions regarding post-employment benefit plans and KERP were adjourned or granted separately.

The applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), brought a motion seeking approval of a claims process for the identification and determination of intellectual property claims asserted by United States Steel Corporation (USS) against USSC within ongoing CCAA proceedings.

USSC argued the process was necessary to provide clarity for potential purchasers in its Sales and Investment Process (SISP) and facilitate a going concern bid.

USS opposed, arguing the process was impractical and burdensome.

The court granted the motion, subject to certain excisions from the claim form, finding the process beneficial for the restructuring and for maximizing recoveries for stakeholders, and that it had the authority under section 11 of the CCAA to do so.

The applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc., sought an extension of the stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to July 28, 2016.

United States Steel Corporation (USS) opposed, seeking a shorter extension and the imposition of conditions for disclosure of Phase II bids and an updated liquidation analysis.

The court granted the extension as requested by the applicant, finding that the applicant acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that a longer stay furthered the prospect of a successful restructuring.

The court denied USS's requests for a shorter extension and conditions, deeming them premature and potentially detrimental to the restructuring process, and found insufficient evidence of value destruction.

The applicants (Representative Counsel for non-unionized employees and retirees, USW Locals 1005 and 8782, and the City of Hamilton) sought "for counsel's eyes only" disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement between United States Steel Corporation (USS), U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), and the Government of Canada.

The motion was brought in the context of CCAA proceedings, with applicants arguing procedural fairness and a minor exemption from settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate how they would be prejudiced without access to the specific details of the undertakings in the agreement, or how the information was material to their claims or negotiations.

The court emphasized that there is no exemption from settlement privilege for the purpose of reviewing a document to determine if a public interest exists that would displace the privilege.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

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.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants (Hollinger Inc. et al.) sought approval of settlement agreements with their former auditors (KPMG) and lawyers (Torys).

The Non-Settling Defendants, including Conrad Black and David Radler, opposed the settlements, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the included third-party releases and bar orders would deprive them of procedural rights to discovery.

The court held it had jurisdiction under the CCAA to manage litigation as a corporate asset.

The court approved the Pierringer-style settlements, finding that the procedural rights of the Non-Settling Defendants could be adequately protected through active case management and the application of the principle of proportionality in discovery.