COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Hollinger Inc. (Re), 2014 ONCA 282
DATE: 20140414
DOCKET: M42678
Feldman, MacPherson and Rouleau JJ.A.
In the matter of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R. S. C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended
And in the Matter of a Proposed Plan of Compromise or Arrangement with respect to Hollinger Inc., 4322525 Canada Inc., and Sugra Limited
David C. Moore, for the moving party, Catalyst Fund General Partner I Inc.
John Finnigan and Leanne Williams, for the responding party, Hollinger Inc.
Heard in writing
On appeal from the order of Justice C. Campbell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 24, 2014, with reasons reported at 2013 ONSC 5431.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] Leave to appeal is denied.
[2] It is well-settled that in the CCAA context, leave to appeal is to be granted sparingly where there are serious and arguable grounds that are of real and significant interest to the parties. In determining whether leave ought to be granted, this court is required to consider the following four-part inquiry:
whether the point on the proposed appeal is of significance to the practice;
whether the point is of significance to the action;
whether the proposed appeal is prima facie meritorious or frivolous; and
whether the appeal will unduly hinder the progress of the action.
Re Timminco Ltd., 2012 ONCA 552, at para. 2.
[3] In our view this motion for leave fails on the third point. It lacks sufficient merit.
[4] The moving party’s proposed appeal would ask:
Whether the motion judge erred in law by failing to conclude that the principles applicable to Solicitors Liens should be applied to the priority claim asserted by Catalyst Fund General Partner I Inc. (“Catalyst”) for reimbursement from Hollinger Inc. for the payment of fees paid by Catalyst to Voorheis & Co.; and
Whether the motion judge erred in law by failing to conclude that the court should apply equitable principles and the principles of unjust enrichment and impose a constructive trust in favour of the Catalyst claim.
[5] While the issues Catalyst seeks to raise on the proposed appeal are of significance to the parties, they lack sufficient merit to meet the test for granting leave in the CCAA context. Additionally, the issues Catalyst seeks to raise involve matters of law that are well-settled and are therefore not of significance to the practice.
[6] The motion is dismissed with costs to the responding party fixed at $1500, inclusive of disbursements and HST.
“K. Feldman J.A.”
“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”
“Paul Rouleau J.A.”