COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES’ CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED
AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF COMPROMISE OR ARRANGEMENT OF SLATER STEEL INC., SLATER STAINLESS CORP., SOREL FORGE INC., 833840 ONTARIO INC., 1124207 ONTARIO INC. AND 3014063 NOVA SCOTIA COMPANY (Applicants)
AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 18.6 OF THE COMPANIES’ CREDITORS’ ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED
AND IN THE MATTER OF SLATER STEELS CORPORATION
BEFORE:
McMURTRY C.J.O., CATZMAN and SIMMONS JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Gregory M. Sidlofsky
for Confederation of National Trade Unions
Kevin P. McElcheran and Michael McGraw
for PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.
Fred Myers and Robert J. Chadwick
for Senior Lending Syndicate
James Bunting
for Directors and Officers of Slater Steels
Charles M. Gibson and Thomas Wallis
for La Régie Des Rentes Du Québec
HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:
June 28, 2005
On appeal from the order of Justice Farley of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 8, 2004.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The Régie filed a requisition under s. 126(3) of the Courts of Justice Act requesting that this matter be heard by a panel of judges who speak English and French. Mr. Gibson withdrew the requisition at the opening of the appeal hearing.
2In disposing of this appeal, we are prepared to assume that the further evidence put forward by the Régie is admissible. Notwithstanding that further evidence, we would dismiss the appeal.
3On September 15, 2003, the motion judge made an order on notice to the appellants (CSN and the Régie) staying the obligation of Slater Steel to file the actuarial report that otherwise had to be filed on September 30, 2003, and relieving Slater and its officers and directors from any obligation arising as a result of that stay. There was no appeal from that order by either of the appellants.
4The September 15, 2003 order followed the ruling of the Régie on August 29, 2003, refusing similar relief. However, in a recital to that ruling, the Régie noted “the additional employer contributions to be paid since January 1, 2003, are not due to the plan until the report in respect of the actuarial valuation at December 31, 2002, is filed with the Régie.” This was evidence on which the motion judge was entitled to rely, as he did, in holding that further contributions were not due until the valuation report in question was filed.
5In our view, nothing in the Jolin affidavit contradicts this conclusion.
6We note as well that parties including the officers and directors of Slater and the senior lenders acted in reliance on the September 15, 2003 order. We find no error in the disposition made by Farley J. or in his reasons, and we would dismiss this appeal.
“Roy McMurtry C.J.O.”
“M.A. Catzman J.A.”
“Janet Simmons J.A.”