Pamela L.J. Huff

In CCAA proceedings, the applicant sought approval of a sale transaction involving substantially all of its pulp mill assets pursuant to s. 36 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

Certain creditors opposed the transaction and urged the court to consider a late competing offer that proposed a higher purchase price.

The court held that the sales process had been extensively marketed internationally, complied with the court‑approved process, and was conducted with the oversight of the monitor and consultation with key stakeholders including the Province.

Applying the Soundair principles and s. 36(3) of the CCAA, the court found that the monitor had acted prudently, the process maintained integrity and fairness, and the later competing offer did not demonstrate that the accepted transaction was improvident.

The court approved the transaction and granted the requested vesting order.

The applicants, comprising the First Leaside group of companies, sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to conduct an orderly wind-down of their operations.

The court found that the applicants, viewed as a group, were insolvent and that the CCAA could be appropriately used for a liquidating proceeding.

The court also granted super-priority Administration and D&O Charges, dismissing arguments from secured creditors that provincial paramountcy issues precluded such priorities without further notice.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring their option to purchase a residential parcel of farmland void for contravening section 50 of the Planning Act.

The appellants had sold a 74-acre farm but entered into an option agreement to purchase back the residential portion.

The Court of Appeal held that the option agreement violated section 50(3) because the grantor retained abutting lands not within a registered plan of subdivision.

The Court further found that the agreement lacked an express condition requiring compliance with the Planning Act under section 50(21), and declined to rectify the contract due to a lack of evidence of a prior oral agreement to include such a condition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents, having been largely successful on the main appeals concerning the interpretation of seizure and detention remedies under the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act and the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, sought costs totaling over $631,000.

The court declined to award costs to any party.

The court reasoned that the proceedings raised novel issues of statutory interpretation that engaged the public interest, the respondents were not completely successful as their cross-appeals were dismissed, and the appellant airport authorities acted reasonably in bringing the appeals given the lack of established jurisprudential authority.