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 moving party, a shareholder and creditor in CCAA proceedings, sought to vary a prior order requiring him to post security for costs before proceeding with a motion.

He argued that new facts had arisen regarding a promissory note issued during the proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence relied upon was either available at the time of the original hearing or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, and would not have probably affected the result.

The court also declined to exercise its discretionary authority under section 11 of the CCAA, noting that reopening a final order would encourage litigation by installment.

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.

In a CCAA proceeding, the court considered supplementary written submissions regarding the appropriateness of differential consideration offered to unsecured creditors in the proposed Plan.

The court accepted the applicants' submission that the fairness of the differential consideration, which involves providing shares to Term Loan Lenders and cash to General Unsecured Creditors, should be determined at the Sanction Hearing rather than at the Meetings Order stage, given the low threshold for a Meetings Order and the presence of conflicting expert reports.

The Applicants sought an Authorization Order and Meetings Order under the CCAA.

The primary issues in dispute concerned the voting rights and classification of Litigation Claimants, which included uncertified U.S. class actions, a certified Ontario class action, and Texas mass tort claims.

The court held that the Litigation Claimants are creditors entitled to vote, but restricted them to one vote per action to prevent them from overriding other stakeholders on numerosity grounds.

The court also ordered summary proceedings to value their claims rather than accepting the Applicants' proposal to value them at $1.

Finally, the court declined to place the Term Loan Lenders in a separate class from other unsecured creditors, finding sufficient commonality of legal interests.

The Plaintiffs (Bondfield Construction Company Limited and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd.) brought a motion to stay summary judgment motions initiated by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) in complex professional negligence actions against auditors, which also involved significant fraud allegations and discoverability issues.

The court, acting as case management judge, granted the stay, determining that full documentary and oral discoveries were essential to ensure a fair and efficient process.

The decision highlighted the complexity of the case, the substantial damages sought, the allegations of long-standing fraudulent activities, and the potential for inconsistent findings if the summary judgment motions proceeded on a limited record.

The court emphasized the flexibility of judges in case-managed matters and the necessity of a comprehensive record for a just adjudication of limitation period issues.

The Receiver brought a motion to extend the appointment of limited partner advisory committees, approve its activities, and approve a process for appointing Representative Counsel for the Unitholders.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Retail Investors raised concerns about the independence of the proposed appointment process.

The court approved the Receiver's activities and the extension of the committees, but modified the Representative Counsel appointment process to include an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation to the court.

The applicants, former directors of PACE Savings & Credit Union, sought a declaration that CUMIS General Insurance Company had a duty to defend them in an action brought by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) as administrator of PACE.

CUMIS denied coverage based on the 'Insured vs. Insured' exclusion in the Directors' and Officers' Liability Policy.

The court held that while the exclusion applied, the 'derivative action' exception restored coverage because the FSRA, acting as a 'person', brought the claim on behalf of the corporation.

The court also ruled that applicants facing fraud claims were entitled to independent counsel due to a conflict of interest, while those facing only negligence claims were not.

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.

The defendant, Hudson's Bay Company (HBC), moved to dismiss the plaintiff David Smith's action for delay and breaches of a trial timetable order in a construction lien reference.

The court found that a motion to dismiss for delay under Rule 27.01(1)(c) was inconsistent with the Construction Lien Act's statutory timelines.

It also determined that the trial timetable order was not peremptory, and Smith's breaches, while not condoned, did not amount to intentional or contumelious conduct warranting dismissal.

The court had already imposed sanctions by barring certain evidence.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the trial was rescheduled with further directions regarding evidence admissibility.

The appellants appealed a preventative measures order issued by the Director under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act regarding a steel mill and mining operations.

The order was issued in response to risks related to the insolvency of Essar Steel Algoma Inc. The parties requested a further adjournment of the appeal proceedings to finalize a settlement agreement in the context of ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a status update telephone conference call.

A minority shareholder of the respondent company brought an application under s. 127 of the Securities Act seeking to block a going-private transaction structured as a plan of arrangement.

The applicant alleged the controlling shareholders improperly relied on the 90 percent exemption from minority approval requirements by engaging in a multi-step strategy to dilute minority interests.

The Commission dismissed the application for standing, finding that the applicant delayed in bringing the application, failed to establish a prima facie case of abusive conduct, and had adequate alternative remedies under the CBCA to address concerns regarding price and fairness.