Morawetz J.

In CCAA proceedings, the court issued a supplementary costs endorsement following an earlier costs decision.

The issue concerned whether the full amount of a law firm disbursement account should be added to the cost award.

After reviewing detailed particulars, the court found the discounted account represented fair value for services rendered and that the disbursements were reasonable.

The court approved inclusion of the full amount of the account as a disbursement and revised the total costs award accordingly.

In litigation concerning environmental liabilities associated with the purchase of a paper mill asset from a receivership, the defendant purchaser sought leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to pursue a third party claim against the court-appointed receiver for alleged wilful negligence and intentional misrepresentation.

The receiver moved to dismiss or permanently stay the third party claim on the basis that leave had not been obtained and that the claim was frivolous.

Applying the low threshold for granting leave established in the case law, the court held that the pleadings and contractual documents disclosed a sufficient factual basis for the proposed claim.

The court granted leave nunc pro tunc to proceed against the receiver (rather than the receiver’s firm), dismissed the receiver’s motion to stay, and awarded costs to the purchaser.

Institutional investors sought an adjournment of a motion to sanction a restructuring plan under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, arguing that provisions in the proposed plan concerning settlements and releases for third party defendants could improperly affect their ability to pursue claims in related securities class actions.

The court reviewed the plan and concluded that approval of any specific settlement, including a proposed auditor settlement, was not before the court on the sanction motion and would require further court orders and satisfaction of multiple conditions precedent.

The court held that any potential impact on investors’ claims could be addressed in future proceedings where the specific settlements and releases would be considered.

As the objections were premature and the debtor faced time and funding constraints, the request for an adjournment was denied.

In a proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the applicants sought several restructuring-related orders, including increased priority for certain court-ordered charges, suspension of special pension payment obligations under an individual pension plan, and approval of an engagement letter for a financial advisor.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under ss. 11.2, 11.4, 11.51 and 11.52 of the CCAA to grant super‑priority charges and accepted the applicants’ submissions regarding critical suppliers, DIP lenders, and a directors’ charge.

The court also approved the suspension of special pension payments and the engagement of the proposed financial advisor on specified terms.

Certain issues relating to a key employee incentive plan were deferred for later determination.

An order was issued granting the requested relief.