Newbould

Following an oppression action within CCAA proceedings, the court determined costs claims by Algoma and GIP.

The Essar Defendants agreed to pay $1.7 million in costs to the Monitor.

Algoma sought partial indemnity costs against the Essar Defendants, largely for extensive e-discovery disbursements.

The court rejected the argument that Algoma should be denied costs because it was aligned with the Monitor, finding Algoma's participation and document production were critical to the case.

The court awarded Algoma $1,138,809.19 in costs.

GIP's claim for costs against the Monitor was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the court found success between the Monitor and GIP was divided.

The defendants, an auditing firm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a $5 billion negligence claim arising from their audits of feeder funds that invested in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The plaintiffs alleged that the auditors failed to discover the fraud, causing the funds to remain invested and suffer massive losses.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove any damages.

Applying the plaintiffs' own damages formula, the court concluded that the funds actually benefited from the delayed discovery of the fraud due to net withdrawals and the exclusion of fictitious profits and unasserted liabilities.

The CCAA monitor of Algoma brought an oppression action under the CBCA against Algoma's parent company, Essar Global, regarding a transaction that transferred Algoma's critical port facilities to a related entity.

The court found that the monitor had standing to bring the action on behalf of creditors.

The court held that the port transaction and a change of control clause giving Essar Global a veto over any buyer of Algoma violated the reasonable expectations of creditors and were oppressive.

The court rejected the business judgment rule defence and ordered the deletion of the change of control clause and amended the agreements to allow Algoma to terminate them after a third-party loan is repaid.

The Monitor brought a motion to sanction the Canadian Debtors' Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the CCAA, which implemented a settlement allocating $7.3 billion in sale proceeds.

Two self-represented long-term disability (LTD) beneficiaries objected, arguing the Plan was unfair and violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by treating their claims pari passu with other unsecured creditors.

The court found the Plan fair and reasonable, noting it was approved by 99.7% of creditors.

The court dismissed the Charter arguments, holding that section 7 does not protect pure economic interests and that equal treatment of creditors in insolvency does not constitute discrimination under section 15.

The Plan was sanctioned.

The Monitor in the CCAA proceedings of Nortel Networks Corporation brought a motion to pass its accounts and those of its legal counsel for the period from January 2009 to May 2016.

The fees sought totaled over $250 million CAD and USD combined.

The court applied the Belyea factors to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the fees.

Despite the unprecedented size of the fees, the court found them justified given the massive scale, complexity, and duration of the cross-border insolvency, the extraordinary powers granted to the Monitor, and the highly successful results achieved for the Canadian estate.

The accounts were approved in full.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's consolidated fresh as amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The claim arose from the procurement process for the Pan/ParaPan American Games Athletes' Village, where the plaintiff alleged it was wrongfully excluded from participating in the winning bid's financing.

The court struck several claims, including breach of the term sheet, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and a novel 'public law claim', without leave to amend.

Claims for breach of an oral agreement and misfeasance in public office were struck with leave to amend.

Claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation against the private defendants and the Crown agency were allowed to stand.

Following a finding of civil fraud against the respondents, the applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the applicants $550,832.92 in substantial indemnity costs due to the respondents' frivolous counter-application, concealment of information, and failure to deliver financial information.

The court also resolved costs claims from other involved parties, awarding various amounts on partial and substantial indemnity scales based on their respective offers to settle and participation in the proceedings.

In the penalty phase of a civil contempt motion, the plaintiff sought to strike the defendants' pleadings, punitive damages, fines, and costs after the defendants were found to have intentionally failed to produce sales invoices and emails, and swore a false affidavit of documents.

The court declined to strike the pleadings or award punitive damages, noting the documents were eventually produced.

Instead, the court ordered the defendants to pay fines of $7,500 and $5,000 to the plaintiff, costs thrown away of approximately $20,000, and the costs of the contempt motion on a full indemnity basis.

The court issued a supplementary costs endorsement regarding specific disbursements claimed by the defendants, Co-operators.

After receiving an explanatory letter from the defendants' counsel and no response from the plaintiffs, the court found the disbursements for photocopies, binding, scanning, and laser printing to be reasonable.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $11,406.37 for these disbursements.

Following a successful motion by the receiver to approve the sale of the respondent's assets to the applicant, and the dismissal of a cross-motion by a third party claiming royalty rights, the court determined the costs payable by the third party.

The court rejected the applicant's request for substantial indemnity costs, awarding partial indemnity costs instead.

The court found the applicant's claimed fees reasonable given the importance and complexity of the issues, and ordered the third party to pay $29,705 to the applicant and $3,996.81 to the Monitor.

The applicant in a receivership proceeding sought approval of its counsel's fees to be paid from an administration charge.

The Attorney General opposed, arguing that the fees should only cover work related to the receivership and not the concurrent forfeiture proceedings.

The court rejected this distinction, finding that the forfeiture application created barriers to the sale of the business that counsel had to address.

The court found the fees reasonable and approved them.

The applicants, leading designers and manufacturers of sports equipment, applied for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a liquidity crisis.

The court granted the Initial Order, approving DIP financing facilities, payment of pre-filing amounts to critical suppliers, and the continued use of a transfer pricing model.

The court also approved an administrative charge, but limited it to exclude fees for US Chapter 11 proceedings or class action defense, and approved an intercompany charge to protect Canadian creditors.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's consolidated fresh as amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The action arose from the procurement process for the Pan/ParaPan American Games Athletes' Village, where the plaintiff alleged it was wrongfully excluded from participating in the winning bid's financing.

The court struck several claims, including breach of the term sheet, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment against the Crown, without leave to amend.

The claim for breach of an oral agreement was struck with leave to amend to provide better particulars.

The claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation against the private defendants and Infrastructure Ontario were allowed to proceed.

The plaintiffs and the Trustee/Receiver sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion and the dismissal of the respondent's cross-motion.

The court found that the respondent's conduct, which included an attempt to circumvent a settlement release and making serious, unsubstantiated allegations against the Trustee/Receiver and opposing counsel, constituted an abuse of process.

Applying the principle that reprehensible or outrageous conduct warrants elevated costs, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs were awarded $35,668.06 and the Trustee/Receiver was awarded $14,197.79.

In the context of a CCAA proceeding, Port of Algoma Inc. (Portco) brought a motion seeking an order compelling the debtor, Essar Steel Algoma Inc., to make post-filing payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement and for an administrative charge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the Monitor was directed to commence an oppression proceeding regarding the underlying related party transactions.

The court also rejected Portco's renewed arguments under section 11.01(a) of the CCAA, noting they had been decided in a prior motion, and declined to lift the stay of proceedings, emphasizing that doing so would be contrary to the interests of the stakeholders and the restructuring process.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

Vancity claimed substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49.10 offer to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 does not apply where an action is dismissed, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the defendants' claimed hours were excessive, noting the plaintiffs failed to produce their own bill of costs for comparison.

The court fixed Vancity's fees at $200,000 and Co-operators' fees at $130,000, plus HST and allowable disbursements.

The Receiver moved for an order approving the sale of the debtor's mining assets to the applicant.

A third party opposed the sale, arguing its gross overriding royalty (GOR) rights constituted an interest in land that could not be extinguished by a vesting order.

The court applied the Dynex test and found the GORs were merely contractual rights to share in revenues, not an interest in land.

The court granted the vesting order, extinguishing the GORs upon payment of their fair appraised value.

The third party's cross-motion for a storage lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to bar a claim filed by Trendi Dezign Incorporated in the bankruptcy of the Kaptor Group, arguing it was released under a prior Settlement Agreement.

The court found that Trendi was a 'related person' to the settling defendants under both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Business Corporations Act, and was therefore bound by the broad release.

The defendant's cross-motion to examine the receiver was dismissed as a fishing expedition not for the general benefit of creditors.

The applicants, a group of real estate development companies, sought an Initial Order under the CCAA and the continuation of their NOI proceedings under the CCAA.

Concurrently, the foreign representative of the parent company sought recognition of Israeli insolvency proceedings as a foreign main proceeding under Part IV of the CCAA.

The court approved a Co-operation Protocol between the foreign representative and the proposed Monitor, recognized the Israeli proceeding as a foreign main proceeding, and granted the Initial Order.

The court also extended the stay of proceedings to related limited partnerships and approved various administrative and interim financing charges.

The liquidator of LWP Capital Inc. brought a motion for declaratory relief regarding a dispute over a working capital adjustment following the sale of its special crops division to the respondent.

The applicant argued the respondent was estopped from disputing the preliminary closing working capital and that the dispute resolution mechanism in the Asset Purchase Agreement was not properly engaged.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no estoppel and holding that the dispute over the net realizable value of the inventory properly triggered the expert determination process under the agreement.