Natasha Rambaran

The applicants, QM GP Inc. and Highpoint Environmental Services Inc., sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and a lien regularization order.

The applicants sought protection to address acute liquidity crisis, interim financing, and relief to stabilize operations.

The court granted the initial order with certain modifications, approving interim debtor-in-possession financing, appointment of a monitor, administration and directors' charges, and a lien regularization order.

The court also granted a temporary stay on performance bond calls and certain indemnity obligations, with the Kingsdale Letter of Credit issue deferred to the comeback hearing.

Tacora Resources Inc. brought a motion for an Approval and Reverse Vesting Order (RVO) and associated third-party releases under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The RVO was sought in respect of a Subscription Agreement with a group of investors, including certain noteholders and Cargill, Incorporated, aimed at deleveraging Tacora's capital structure and preserving it as a going concern.

The court granted the RVO and approved the broad third-party releases, finding them necessary to preserve valuable permits, licenses, and tax attributes, and that the transaction represented the best available outcome for all stakeholders, particularly given the lack of opposition.

The applicant, Tacora Resources Inc., sought approval for an Amended and Restated Debtor in Possession (DIP) financing agreement with Cargill and an extension of the CCAA Stay Period.

The Ad Hoc Group of Noteholders (AHG) opposed the Cargill DIP, proposing an alternative and seeking renegotiation of terms, including an exit fee, legal costs, and the "Offtake Condition" related to a pre-existing commercial agreement with Cargill.

The court approved the Cargill DIP and extended the stay, finding the Cargill agreement offered greater short-term stability and liquidity, was recommended by the Monitor, and did not materially prejudice other stakeholders beyond what already existed due to the pre-CCAA Offtake Agreement.

The court held that the DIP approval motion was not the appropriate forum to address the enforceability or commercial reasonableness of the Offtake Agreement itself.

The applicant, acting as Foreign Representative for the Chapter 11 Debtors, brought an unopposed motion under the CCAA to recognize several orders of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, including the Confirmation Order approving the Chapter 11 Plan.

The court found that the Plan was overwhelmingly supported by creditors, treated Canadian and U.S. stakeholders equitably, and was in the best interests of the debtors.

The court granted the recognition orders, approved the corporate steps necessary to implement the Plan, and authorized a mechanism to terminate the CCAA proceedings.

Tacora Resources Inc. sought an amended and restated initial order (ARIO) and a solicitation order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to facilitate its restructuring, including approval for a $75 million debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing facility from Cargill.

An ad hoc group of senior noteholders (AHG) opposed the Cargill DIP facility, alleging a flawed process and material prejudice, and brought a cross-motion for approval of their own competing DIP proposal.

The court found that Tacora's Board exercised reasonable business judgment in selecting the Cargill DIP facility, which was financially superior and less prejudicial to creditors overall than the AHG's proposal.

The court dismissed the AHG's cross-motion, finding no evidence of improper conduct by Cargill or the Board, and granted Tacora's requested ARIO and Solicitation Order, including approval of the Cargill DIP facility, an extended stay period, a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP), and a sealing order for KERP details.

The applicants, acting as Foreign Representative, sought a recognition order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for various orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The requested relief included approval of a sale of substantially all Chapter 11 Debtors’ assets, vesting orders for Canadian assets, and recognition of claims, assumption/rejection procedures, and key employee incentive plan orders.

The motion was unopposed and supported by the Information Officer.

The court found the transactions beneficial to stakeholders, the sale process fair and reasonable, and the U.S. orders consistent with CCAA principles, granting the requested recognition and approvals.

The applicant, in its capacity as Foreign Representative, sought an order recognizing the Third DIP Amendment Order granted by the United States Bankruptcy Court.

The order amended the Term Loan DIP Credit Agreement to add a new super senior, first-out $30 million tranche to the DIP facility.

The court found that the Chapter 11 Debtors needed additional financing and that recognition was supported by the principle of comity.

The unopposed motion was granted pursuant to section 49 of the CCAA.

The Applicant, Instant Brands Inc., as Foreign Representative of the Chapter 11 Debtors, sought recognition of several US Chapter 11 orders, including the Supplemental Interim DIP Order, Final DIP Order, Final Cash Management Order, and Bidding Procedures Order.

The relief was unopposed and supported by the Information Officer.

The court granted the recognition orders, finding them necessary and appropriate to fund operations, maintain an integrated cash management system, and facilitate a competitive sale process, thereby furthering comity and ensuring fair treatment of stakeholders in the cross-border insolvency proceedings.

The Attorney General of Canada applied for a winding-up order for the Canadian business of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. as liquidator, pursuant to the Bank Act and the Winding-Up and Restructuring Act.

SVB, a U.S. bank with a Canadian branch, became insolvent in the U.S., leading to its assets being transferred to a bridge bank.

The Superintendent of Financial Institutions had taken control of SVB's Canadian assets.

The court found it just and equitable to grant the winding-up order, noting SVB's insolvency and the need to protect Canadian creditors and stakeholders, as the U.S. bridge bank was not authorized to operate in Canada.

The order provides broad powers to the liquidator while ensuring court supervision and protection for stakeholders.

The moving parties, representing U.S. class action claimants, sought leave to appeal a supervising judge's order in a CCAA proceeding.

The supervising judge had dismissed their motion seeking to be treated as unaffected creditors or to have an expedited adjudication of their claims prior to a creditor vote.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious and did not raise issues of significance to the insolvency practice.

The Court emphasized the high level of deference owed to a CCAA supervising judge's discretionary decisions balancing stakeholder interests.

In a CCAA proceeding, the court considered supplementary written submissions regarding the appropriateness of differential consideration offered to unsecured creditors in the proposed Plan.

The court accepted the applicants' submission that the fairness of the differential consideration, which involves providing shares to Term Loan Lenders and cash to General Unsecured Creditors, should be determined at the Sanction Hearing rather than at the Meetings Order stage, given the low threshold for a Meetings Order and the presence of conflicting expert reports.

The Applicants sought an Authorization Order and Meetings Order under the CCAA.

The primary issues in dispute concerned the voting rights and classification of Litigation Claimants, which included uncertified U.S. class actions, a certified Ontario class action, and Texas mass tort claims.

The court held that the Litigation Claimants are creditors entitled to vote, but restricted them to one vote per action to prevent them from overriding other stakeholders on numerosity grounds.

The court also ordered summary proceedings to value their claims rather than accepting the Applicants' proposal to value them at $1.

Finally, the court declined to place the Term Loan Lenders in a separate class from other unsecured creditors, finding sufficient commonality of legal interests.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

The defendants, a condominium corporation and an individual, brought a motion to replace the plaintiffs' chosen corporate discovery representative, Edgar Arabian, with Senthuran Krishnakulasingham (SK).

The defendants argued SK was more knowledgeable and Arabian had a conflict of interest.

The plaintiffs opposed, asserting Arabian's sufficient knowledge, absence of conflict, and SK's ineligibility as a former director whose answers would not bind the corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding Arabian had sufficient knowledge despite SK potentially being more knowledgeable on some issues.

The alleged conflict of interest was not substantiated as the information shared by Arabian was legitimately available to unit owners.

Crucially, SK was deemed ineligible because, as a former director, his counsel admitted his answers would not bind the corporation, rendering his examination ineffective.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought professional misconduct allegations against the respondent, an electrical engineer, after he submitted an 'alternative solution' under the Fire Code for a rental property he owned.

The respondent lacked the training and experience to prepare the alternative solution and had previously been convicted of a Fire Protection and Prevention Act offence for failing to comply with a Fire Safety Inspection Order.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct for undertaking work he was not competent to perform and for his provincial offence conviction.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a $2,500 fine, successful completion of the Professional Practice Examination within 18 months, and a 10-month suspension that would be suspended pending compliance with the examination requirement.