Patrick Corney

The defendant brought a motion to vary an ex parte Mareva injunction to allow him to appoint a receiver over the property of a company controlled by the bankrupt.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the advances made by the defendant were equity rather than debt and that the security was a sham.

The court applied the 'just or convenient' test under the Courts of Justice Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Finding that the company had no active business to stabilize and that the validity of the security was highly contested, the court concluded it was not just or convenient to appoint a receiver and dismissed the motion.

The Monitor and the Van Iersel Parties brought motions for security for costs against Kenneth Schaller, a former shareholder of three debtor companies in a CCAA proceeding.

Schaller filed a wide-ranging motion seeking to reopen the CCAA proceedings, set aside the approval and reverse vesting order, and replace the Monitor, alleging fraud and misconduct.

The court found that Schaller appeared to be ordinarily resident outside Ontario and that there was good reason to believe the motion was frivolous and vexatious.

The court ordered Schaller to post security for costs totalling $400,000 ($250,000 to the Monitor and $150,000 to the Van Iersel Parties).

The decision also addressed Schaller's submission of AI-hallucinated case citations, finding this to be a serious breach of his obligation to verify authorities submitted to the court.

The court granted a bankruptcy order against Thomas Dylan Suitor, finding that the applicant, The Fuller Landau Group Inc. (as Receiver of The Lion’s Share Group Inc.), established the necessary statutory requirements under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that Mr. Suitor was personally liable under promissory notes as both borrower and guarantor, that he owed debts exceeding $1,000, and that he had ceased to meet his liabilities generally as they became due.

The court also found the existence of multiple creditors and/or special circumstances justifying the order, and declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the order.

The applicants, a group of real estate development entities (Ashcroft Homes Group), sought to extend an initial Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) stay of proceedings to facilitate a restructuring.

Secured creditors, representing 84% of the total secured debt, opposed the extension and instead moved for the appointment of interim receivers.

The court found the applicants' restructuring plan lacked substance, noted a significant loss of confidence in management due to past conduct and outdated property valuations, and determined that the collaborative receivership approach proposed by the majority of secured creditors was more appropriate.

The motion to extend the CCAA stay was dismissed, and the motions for the appointment of receivers were granted.

This endorsement addresses two motions within a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding concerning 2039882 Ontario Limited, a modular home community developer.

The Monitor sought approval of its reports, fees, and the termination of the CCAA proceedings.

The Receiver sought approval of a sale agreement (a credit bid by KHL Investments USA Inc.), authorization to disclaim certain Homebuyer Contracts due to unresolved water/sewage issues preventing construction, and approval of its reports and fees.

The court granted both motions, finding the sale transaction to be the best available outcome and the disclaimer of contracts necessary, despite the unfortunate impact on prospective purchasers who lost their deposits.

The court also approved sealing certain confidential exhibits.

A case conference was held in a CCAA proceeding, requested by the Purchaser of the Applicants' business, to seek directions on the interpretation of a vesting order concerning a pre-filing personal injury claim.

The parties agreed that any necessary motion for interpretation should be heard by the supervising CCAA court.

They also cooperatively discussed limiting recoveries in the personal injury actions to available general liability insurance proceeds and lifting the stay for that limited purpose, working towards a consent order.

HPI Advisory Inc., as the court-appointed Liquidator and Marketing and Mortgage Agent (MMA) of Morrison Laurier Mortgage Corporation (the "Company"), moved for an approval and vesting order for the sale of the "Lakeview Centre" property, and an ancillary order to seal a confidential appendix to its Fourth Report.

The Company is a mortgage investment corporation undergoing winding up.

The motion was unopposed.

The court granted the approval and vesting order, finding that the MMA had satisfied the "Soundair Principles" by making sufficient efforts to obtain the best price and conducting a fair sales process.

The court also approved the MMA's activities as described in the Fourth Report.

A sealing order for the confidential appendix was granted, limited in scope and time, to protect commercially sensitive information and ensure the integrity of the sales process, satisfying the factors from Sierra Club as refined in Sherman Estate.

The Court-appointed liquidator of Morrison Laurier Mortgage Corporation sought approval for the sale of the Corporation's last non-cash asset, an office building.

The motion was opposed by a preferred shareholder who proposed an alternative transaction involving share redemption.

The court granted the liquidator's motion, affirming the deference owed to a liquidator's business judgment and the integrity of the court-approved sales process.

The court found the alternative proposal was not properly submitted within the process and lacked sufficient detail and financial backing.

This case involves a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding where the Applicants sought approval of a Sales and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) including a stalking horse bid.

Green Acre Capital LP, a minority shareholder and creditor, opposed the SISP and brought a cross-motion to replace the previously approved Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) financing facility with an alternative one.

The court approved the SISP, finding it broad enough to explore various restructuring options beyond just a sale, and dismissed Green Acre's cross-motion, emphasizing the need to minimize instability by not replacing a recently approved DIP facility for minor financial benefits.

The defendants brought motions to strike three related actions commenced by investors who financed movie productions.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of trust, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation against various corporate and individual defendants.

The court struck the breach of contract claims against the Nightingale defendants as there was no privity of contract.

The court also struck certain gross negligence and breach of trust claims where insufficient particulars were pleaded.

However, the court upheld the majority of the claims for breach of trust, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation against the individual directors, finding they were adequately pleaded.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their pleadings.

The defendants, an architectural firm and a project manager, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, arguing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff's claim stemmed from condensation and ice issues in his luxury home, which he attributed to faulty windows and ventilation designed and installed by the defendants.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's claim was not discovered more than two years before the action was issued.

The court emphasized the plaintiff's reasonable reliance on the defendants' superior expertise and their ongoing efforts to resolve the problem, concluding that he lacked sufficient information to believe he had an actionable claim until July 2016.

In a securities misrepresentation class action, the defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' reply expert report, delivered by Andrew M. Mintzer, in its entirety.

The report, initially intended to address causation, expanded to cover liability, contravening the agreed timetable and the rule against case-splitting.

The court granted the defendants' motion, striking the report but allowing the plaintiffs leave to file a new affidavit from Mr. Mintzer strictly confined to the issue of causation, as originally agreed.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to timetables and the rule against case-splitting, particularly in leave motions under the Ontario Securities Act, which serve a gatekeeper function.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The unsuccessful appellants (Essar entities and GIP entities) were ordered to pay costs to the successful respondents (the Monitor and Algoma Steel).

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs but disagreed on whether liability should be several or joint and several.

The court awarded costs on a several basis, allocating 25% to GIP and 75% to Essar, finding that GIP had a more limited role with different issues and less oral argument time than Essar.

A CCAA monitor brought an oppression action under the Canada Business Corporations Act against the parent company (Essar Global) and related entities, alleging that a port transaction transferring critical assets to an Essar-controlled entity was oppressive to Algoma's stakeholders (trade creditors, employees, pensioners, and retirees).

The trial judge found the monitor had standing as a complainant, the action was properly brought as an oppression remedy rather than a derivative action, and the port transaction and its change of control provision were oppressive.

The court granted a remedy modifying the transaction to remove the change of control veto and provide Algoma with termination rights after GIP's loan was repaid.

The appellants appealed on multiple grounds, including standing, characterization of the claim, reasonable expectations analysis, and the appropriateness of the remedy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment in all respects.

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 applicants, former franchisees of a Baton Rouge restaurant, brought an application seeking declarations that a non-competition clause in their franchise agreement was void and unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade or for ambiguity.

They also sought a declaration that their proposed new restaurant menu did not violate the clause, and claimed damages for breach of the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding the 5-year, 10-kilometre restrictive covenant to be reasonable and unambiguous given its narrow scope, which only prohibited selling products using the franchisor's recipes.

The court declined to rule on the proposed menu without evidence of the actual recipes and found no evidence of bad faith by the franchisor.