Mitch Stephenson

This endorsement concerns a motion by Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation and its subsidiaries (the Applicants) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a Subscription Agreement, a reverse vesting order (ARVO), releases for various parties, a sealing order, and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The proposed transaction involves First Generation Capital (FGC), the majority shareholder and secured creditor, acquiring the Applicants' business via a credit bid and share transaction, with excluded assets and liabilities vested out to Residual Cos.

The court analyzed the necessity and fairness of the ARVO structure, the sales process, the benefit to creditors compared to bankruptcy, and the appropriateness of the releases, ultimately granting all requested relief.

In the context of Laurentian University's CCAA proceedings, the moving party brought a motion seeking an order to direct the Monitor to engage in mediation regarding its appeal of a Claims Officer's decision.

The Claims Officer had upheld the Monitor's disallowance of the moving party's $9.8 million claim for loss of commercial value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the existing claims process provided an adequate mechanism for resolving the dispute through the pending appeal.

The court also noted that the request for mediation was made too late, as it was brought only after the Claims Officer had already determined the matter on its merits.

The appellant, a former lawyer whose license was revoked, appealed a motion judge's decision to dismiss his action against 11 of 16 defendants under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the Law Society Tribunal and Legal Aid Ontario, finding the claims abusive due to outstanding appeals and multiplicity of proceedings.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, reinstating claims against Doctor Michael Colleton and the Hamilton Police Service, ruling that these claims were not "clearest of cases" for Rule 2.1 dismissal and involved complex legal issues (e.g., absolute privilege, negligent investigation) better suited for a Rule 21 motion.

Following the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's action against several defendants under Rule 2.1.01, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued that the claim raised novel issues, the costs claimed were excessive, and an award would cause undue hardship.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the claims were not novel and there was no evidence of impecuniosity.

The court awarded global costs of $10,500 to the successful defendants, applying a 20% reduction to the amounts claimed to reflect the possibility that the defendants could have filed a joint motion.

The self-represented plaintiff, a disbarred lawyer, commenced an action against 16 defendants, including the Law Society of Ontario, the Law Society Tribunal, Legal Aid Ontario, Hamilton Police Services, and various individuals involved in his disciplinary and criminal proceedings.

Several defendants brought requests under Rule 2.1.01(1) to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the claims against the Law Society Tribunal defendants as an improper collateral attack, against the Legal Aid Ontario defendants as duplicative of an existing action, against the Colleton defendants as barred by absolute privilege, and against the Hamilton Police defendants as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The action was allowed to continue against the remaining defendants who had not filed Rule 2.1 requests.

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.

Canada Post Corporation brought an urgent motion seeking an injunction against protestors blockading its mail processing plants.

After the injunction was granted, protestors continued their actions, leading Canada Post to bring a further urgent motion for directions and amendments to the order regarding police assistance in enforcement, specifically concerning the Peel Regional Police's actions.

The court dismissed Canada Post's motion, reaffirming that courts cannot direct police on how to carry out their operational discretion in enforcing civil orders, and that contempt proceedings are the only available remedy for non-compliance.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the manufacturers of Cook IVC filters, alleging negligent design and failure to warn of risks associated with the medical devices.

The court dismissed the certification motion.

While the plaintiffs satisfied the identifiable class and representative plaintiff criteria, and pleaded a valid cause of action for failure to warn, they failed to plead a valid cause of action for design negligence.

Crucially, the court found no 'some basis in fact' for the existence of any common issues regarding either design defect or duty to warn, as the evidence did not identify a specific design defect or inadequacy in the warnings provided to physicians.

Consequently, the preferable procedure criterion was also not met.

Legal Aid Ontario brought a motion to re-open the evidence and vary a costs decision that held it liable for 50% of the full indemnity costs awarded against the respondent.

LAO sought to introduce evidence refuting the court's presumptions that it had received an expert report and notice of a Public Guardian and Trustee certificate earlier than it claimed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the presumptions did not constitute a 'mistake' under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules, that LAO had ample opportunity to address these issues prior to the costs decision, and that the proposed evidence would not have changed the result.