M. Wasserman

The plaintiff was injured when she tripped on a dumbbell during an exercise class at the defendant's gym.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff signed a membership agreement with an exclusion of liability clause and that there was no negligence.

The court found the exclusion clause was not binding because the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to bring it to the plaintiff's attention under s. 5(3) of the Occupiers' Liability Act.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no negligence by the defendant, as the risk of a round dumbbell rolling was obvious and required no warning.

The court also ruled the plaintiff's expert evidence inadmissible.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell on a public transit bus.

At trial, the jury awarded $35,000 in general damages and $5,000 for past housekeeping.

On post-trial motions, the court held that while the defendant employer was vicariously liable for the driver's negligence, its liability was limited by the Insurance Act to the amount the driver would be liable for.

Applying the statutory deductible reduced the general damages to zero.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff did not meet the statutory threshold for permanent serious impairment.

The housekeeping award was also reduced to zero due to collateral benefits received from the plaintiff's own insurer.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), the applicant sought approval for Transition Arrangements with its parent company, a Business Preservation Plan involving significant cash conservation measures (including suspension of pension, OPEB, and municipal tax payments), and Amended DIP Financing.

The court approved the motions, finding that the Transition Arrangements were fair and reasonable, and that the Business Preservation Plan and DIP financing were necessary to allow USSC to continue operations and pursue a restructuring solution, despite objections from the union and municipalities regarding the suspension of benefits and taxes.

The applicants sought approval under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act for a sale of substantially all of their assets following a court‑approved sales and investor solicitation process.

The court considered the statutory factors in s. 36 of the CCAA, including the fairness and reasonableness of the process, the role of the monitor, consultation with creditors, and the adequacy of the consideration.

A late competing bid was rejected to preserve the integrity of the court‑approved sales process.

The court also addressed priority issues involving a DIP lender, secured creditors, and potential claims to HST refunds under the Financial Administration Act.

The proposed transaction and distribution scheme were approved as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicants moved under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act for an extension of the stay of proceedings until June 6, 2012.

A successful bid had been selected following a sale and investor solicitation process, and the extension was required to finalize the purchase agreement and seek court approval.

The court found that the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence, and granted the extension as the applicants had sufficient interim financing to proceed.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought court approval to increase a debtor-in-possession (DIP) lending facility and to implement a Sale and Investor Solicitation Process (SISP).

The court considered the factors under s. 11.2(4) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and approved an increase of the DIP facility to $6 million, noting the monitor’s support and the absence of opposition from secured creditors.

The proposed SISP included an expedited timeline, applicant-led solicitation of bids, and a stalking horse credit bid by the DIP lender.

The court held that the process was fair, transparent, and commercially reasonable given the applicants’ liquidity crisis and prior marketing efforts.

The SISP was approved as likely to maximize stakeholder value by facilitating either a going-concern sale or new investment.

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought an extension of the stay of proceedings and an increase to the debtor-in-possession lending facility.

The court considered the applicants’ liquidity position, workforce reductions, revised cash-flow forecasts, and the monitor’s report supporting the request.

The court found the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence and that extending the stay would permit implementation of an expedited sale and investor solicitation process aimed at preserving the business as a going concern.

The court approved an increase of the DIP facility to $5.35 million and amendments to the loan agreement, but declined to include $650,000 in accrued lender fees within the facility at that stage due to insufficient review.

The stay of proceedings was extended to allow the restructuring process to continue.