Orestes Pasparakis

The applicants sought an order sanctioning their Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and extending the stay period.

The Plan aimed to restructure the Pacific Group's indebtedness by approximately US $5.1 billion and maintain it as a going concern.

A Shareholder Consortium proposed an alternative recapitalization and refinancing proposal and requested an adjournment, which was opposed by the applicants and other stakeholders.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the alternative proposal a "last minute effort to de-rail" the restructuring.

The court sanctioned the Plan, finding strict compliance with CCAA requirements, good faith, and that the Plan was fair and reasonable, representing the best alternative available.

The court also approved third-party releases and granted a stay of proceedings for non-applicant parties, as well as extending the stay period.

The applicant, GuestLogix Inc., sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for a stay of proceedings, the appointment of a Monitor, and authorization for super-priority charges.

The court found the applicant to be an insolvent debtor company with over $5 million in unsecured liabilities, making it eligible for CCAA protection.

The court granted the stay and the requested Administration and Directors' Charges.

However, due to a potential conflict of interest raised by a secured creditor, the court declined to appoint the proposed Monitor, Deloitte Restructuring Inc., and instead appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.

The appellant appealed a decision implying a contractual obligation to disclose financial information to the respondent, enabling the respondent to determine whether to exercise an option to acquire up to a 20% interest in a limited partnership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly applied the business efficacy test.

The Court held that the option right would be illusory without the implied right to disclosure, and that implying such a term was necessary to give business efficacy to the parties' agreement.

The applicant sought declaratory relief that its contractual option to acquire up to a 20 percent interest in an LNG terminal project remained valid despite the project's evolution from an import facility to an export facility.

Applying orthodox contractual interpretation principles, the court held the project had evolved but had not become a brand-new project, and the option therefore continued to attach to the existing development.

The court further implied a term requiring disclosure of sufficient financial information to permit the applicant to determine the value of the option and verify the exercise price, holding that such disclosure was necessary for business efficacy and consistent with the organizing principle of good faith in contractual performance.

The disclosure was made subject to confidentiality protections to be negotiated by the parties.

In a contested shareholder proxy fight arising from a requisitioned special meeting, the applicants sought court supervision over meeting procedures under the Business Corporations Act, including appointment of an independent chair and invalidation of the management proxy form.

The court held that an independent chair would not be imposed absent evidence of demonstrated impropriety or a likelihood the proposed chair would act unfairly, and speculation about associations with incumbent management was insufficient.

The court also declined to invalidate the current proxy, finding it reflected the requisitioned resolutions, did not conflict with the governing statute or securities requirements, and better avoided voter confusion.

Issues relating to compliance of the dissident slate with the corporation's by-laws and proxy inspection logistics were left to be addressed in context if necessary after the meeting.

A supplier sought specific performance of a master services agreement during proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, arguing that deferred implementation fees constituted payment for post‑filing licensed software use and therefore fell within the supplier payment exception in s. 11.01(a).

The court examined the contractual structure separating implementation services from ongoing outsourcing services and held that the implementation fee related to historical system development completed before the CCAA initial order.

Because the services associated with the implementation fee were performed pre‑filing, the claim constituted a pre‑filing debt subject to the stay of proceedings.

The exception in s. 11.01(a) applies narrowly and only to goods or services provided after the initial order.

The motion seeking payment of deferred implementation fees and related amounts was dismissed.

The defendant tobacco companies brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' proposed class actions as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached their contracts by participating in smuggling duty-free tobacco back into Canada, avoiding higher domestic prices.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the alleged smuggling long before commencing the actions in 2009 and 2010.

The court dismissed the motions, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiffs discovered the constituent elements of their claims, particularly given the defendants' consistent denials of involvement in smuggling.

A dissident unitholder sought declarations allowing it to nominate trustees at a real estate investment trust’s annual meeting despite the trust’s advance notice policy.

The dispute turned on the interpretation of a proviso stating that adjournment or postponement of a meeting would not commence a new nomination period.

The court held that the nomination window is triggered by the actual date of the meeting, not the originally scheduled date, and that the proviso merely prevents previously valid nominations from becoming stale after postponement.

Interpreting the declaration of trust according to contractual principles and favouring unitholder electoral rights where ambiguity exists, the court concluded that the applicant’s nomination notice was timely.

The applicant was therefore entitled to nominate trustees at the meeting.

The Applicants, operating a network of alternative financial services branches across Canada, sought initial protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a severe liquidity crisis and regulatory challenges.

The court found the Applicants to be insolvent and granted a stay of proceedings to provide breathing space for restructuring.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the matter in Ontario, as the Applicants' chief place of business is located there.

However, the court deferred the request for a DIP financing charge to allow other stakeholders time to respond.

The applicant shareholder brought an application under s. 247 of the Canada Business Corporations Act seeking an order that the respondent corporation comply with and refrain from breaching s. 150 regarding proxy solicitation.

The dispute arose from a corporate press release issued during a proxy contest, which the applicant alleged constituted an unlawful solicitation of proxies prior to delivery of a management proxy circular.

The court considered whether the communication was “calculated to result in the procurement or withholding of a proxy” within the meaning of the Act.

Interpreting solicitation broadly but contextually, the court found the press release primarily responded to criticisms and explained corporate actions rather than encouraging shareholders to submit proxies.

The press release therefore did not constitute a solicitation and no breach of s. 150 occurred.

Dissident shareholders holding more than 5% of a public corporation sought orders under ss. 143 and 144 of the Canada Business Corporations Act requiring the board to call a shareholders’ meeting to remove and replace directors.

The court held the first requisition invalid because it was made by a beneficial rather than registered shareholder and failed to identify proposed director nominees.

Although a second requisition was valid, the directors were entitled to rely on the statutory exception in CBCA s. 143(3)(a) because a record date had already been fixed for an upcoming annual meeting.

While shareholders may in principle call a meeting under s. 143(4) even where a board relies on s. 143(3), the court declined to permit the proposed meeting in the circumstances due to delay by the applicants, limited prejudice from waiting for the scheduled AGM, and the costs of holding two meetings in close proximity.

The appellant, Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, appealed an order declaring that a claim brought by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board in a proposed class action was not a 'Released Claim' under a 2008 Comprehensive Agreement.

The 2008 Agreement settled claims between tobacco companies and government entities regarding tobacco smuggling.

The Court of Appeal held that while the claims might fall within the definition of 'Released Claims', the Board was acting as an agent for tobacco producers to enforce contracts, not as an agent for the Crown.

Therefore, the Board was not a 'Releasing Entity' under the agreement, and the claims were not released.

The appeal was dismissed.

A shareholder holding more than 5% of a corporation’s voting shares requisitioned a special meeting under the Canada Business Corporations Act seeking to replace the entire board of directors.

The board scheduled the requisitioned meeting to occur together with the corporation’s annual general meeting approximately 155 days after the requisition was delivered.

The applicant sought a court order under s. 144 of the CBCA requiring the meeting to occur sooner, arguing the delay was unreasonable and intended to frustrate shareholder rights.

The court held that the timing of the meeting fell within the board’s reasonable business judgment, noting legitimate concerns about costs, management resources, shareholder participation, and the desirability of combining the special meeting with the AGM.

Finding no improper purpose and no demonstrated prejudice to the shareholder, the court declined to interfere with the board’s decision.

The appellant and respondent were both defrauded in an investment scheme.

A receiver was appointed and identified three methods for allocating the remaining funds.

The motion judge ordered that distributions be made pursuant to the fund unit allocation method, which is a form of the lowest intermediate balance rule (LIBR).

The appellant appealed, arguing that the motion judge erred in finding that LIBR is the general rule and in equating the receiver's calculations with proper LIBR tracing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that LIBR is the preferred allocation method for comingled funds where practically possible, and finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual conclusions regarding the receiver's calculations.

The applicant sought a declaration that a proposed class action brought by a tobacco growers’ marketing board against a tobacco manufacturer was not barred as a released claim under a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving governmental claims relating to tobacco smuggling and unpaid taxes.

The respondents argued that the class action fell within the broad release provisions and that the marketing board was effectively a Crown entity bound by the agreement.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation governing releases, including contextual interpretation and the rule that general release language is limited to matters within the parties’ contemplation at the time of execution.

It concluded that the settlement agreement addressed governmental tax‑related claims arising from smuggling and did not extend to private claims by growers for price differentials.

The class proceeding was therefore not a released claim by a releasing entity.

The court heard two separate motions to strike or stay pending summary judgment motions on the Commercial List.

Applying the principles from Combined Air and the proportionality requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that concerns about the appropriateness of summary judgment motions should be addressed through case management rather than formal motions to strike.

The court reviewed the proposed summary judgment motions in both actions and concluded that neither was an appropriate candidate for summary judgment due to the complexity of the issues, the voluminous records, and the need for a full trial to appreciate the evidence.

Both summary judgment motions were directed not to proceed, and the parties were ordered to prepare for trial.

A receiver was appointed over a fraudulent investment scheme where the deposits of 24 investors were commingled.

The receiver sought directions on how to distribute the remaining funds, which had a significant shortfall.

One group of investors argued for a pro rata distribution based on original contributions, while another argued for the Lowest Intermediate Balance Rule (LIBR).

The court held that LIBR is the general rule for resolving competing claims to commingled funds unless it is unworkable.

Finding that the receiver could practically calculate the LIBR distributions, the court ordered the funds to be distributed according to LIBR.

The defendant brought a motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to answer certain undertakings and refused questions arising from examinations for discovery.

The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06(1) and reviewed multiple refused questions to determine whether they related to matters in issue, particularly the ownership of coins held in a safety deposit box.

Most questions were found to be irrelevant or speculative and did not need to be answered, though one question relating to an alleged event in Israel was ordered answered.

The court also addressed alleged improper interruptions by plaintiff’s counsel during discovery and directed counsel to conduct future examinations consistently with established principles governing discovery conduct.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the defendant.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to stay its application in favour of arbitration.

The dispute arose from a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding tobacco smuggling, which contained an arbitration clause.

The appellant sought declarations regarding whether a class action brought by a tobacco board constituted a released claim under the agreement, affecting the respondent's right to escrow settlement payments.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that while the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine issues under section 7 of the agreement, the court must determine issues under section 15 because the tobacco board was not a party to the arbitration agreement and its rights were directly implicated.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a residential development that would allegedly interfere with the public's view of the Legislative Building.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for leave to appeal and found that while the proposed appeal raised a question of law, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision regarding the interpretation of the Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.