The applicants, franchisees of the respondent debtor company, sought leave to appeal an order sanctioning a Plan of Arrangement under the CCAA.
They sought to introduce fresh evidence alleging that they had over-contributed to the national advertising fund compared to other franchisees, giving them a claim for unjust enrichment that they were unaware of during the claims process.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the fresh evidence did not meet the due diligence requirement for admission, as the differential treatment had been disclosed in the debtor's materials.
Furthermore, the applicants failed to meet the stringent test for granting leave to appeal in CCAA proceedings, as they offered no alternative plan and there was no evidence the sanctioned plan was unfair or unreasonable.
