45 total
Motion for directions dismissed; serving an anti-anti-suit injunction application breaches existing anti-suit injunction.
The defendants and their alter ego, Nest Services Limited, brought a motion for directions on whether they could serve the plaintiffs with an application for an anti-anti-suit injunction in Hong Kong.
The court had previously declared the arbitration agreement void and issued an anti-suit injunction barring the defendants from pursuing arbitration in Hong Kong.
The court held that pursuing the anti-anti-suit injunction was effectively pursuing the enjoined arbitrations, and directed that the defendants may not take any steps to advance the arbitrations.
Substantial indemnity costs of $261,900 awarded to plaintiffs following successful anti-suit injunction against abusive foreign arbitration.
The plaintiffs successfully obtained an anti-suit injunction to halt an arbitration commenced by the defendants in Hong Kong, which was found to be an abusive collateral attack on prior Ontario rulings.
The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The court awarded the plaintiffs $261,900 in substantial indemnity costs, emphasizing the defendants' vexatious and oppressive tactics in pursuing the foreign arbitration and threatening the representative plaintiffs with personal financial jeopardy.
The court sanctioned the CCAA plans of major tobacco companies to effect a global settlement.
This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.
The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.
The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.
The court granted an unopposed motion for an insurance settlement and bar order in CCAA proceedings.
The applicant, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., brought an unopposed motion for an insurance settlement and bar order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.
The court found that the record supported the requested relief and granted the motion.
The court granted an unopposed motion to approve a notice protocol order for class action plaintiffs.
This endorsement concerns ongoing insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) involving JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The specific motion, brought by the applicants, sought a Quebec Class Action Plaintiffs Notice Protocol Order.
The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with the requested order signed.
The court granted an unopposed motion for a Sanction Protocol Order in ongoing CCAA proceedings.
This endorsement concerns a joint motion brought by the court-appointed Monitors for JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. in their ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The Monitors sought a Sanction Protocol Order to establish the date for the Sanction Hearing, ratify the litigation timetable, approve the dissemination of the Agenda and Sanction Hearing procedure, approve the Omnibus Sanction Hearing Notice, and set the deadline for Sanction Hearing Objection Notices.
The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with three orders signed.
The court confirmed that notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders were reasonable.
This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.
The court appointed a monitor to oversee a real estate business amid an oppression dispute between co-founding brothers.
The case involves a dispute between two brothers, Nickolas and George Georghiades, co-founders of a real estate business (LP).
Nickolas brought a motion seeking the appointment of an auditor, inspector, and monitor, and direct access to business information, alleging oppression and misappropriation of funds by George.
The court found a prima facie case of oppression due to George's control over information and the brothers' dysfunctional relationship.
The court ordered the appointment of an independent Monitor with a prescribed mandate to observe and report on the business's financial activities, in addition to an agreed-upon audit.
The request for a separate inspector/investigator and direct access was declined at this stage, with the possibility of revisiting if the Monitor's reports indicate ongoing difficulties.
No costs were awarded.
The court granted Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders to advance a $32.5 billion global settlement of tobacco claims under the CCAA.
The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.
These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.
The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.
The court granted unopposed motions extending the CCAA stay period and authorizing ancillary operational relief for the applicant tobacco companies.
This endorsement concerns three tobacco companies (JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) operating under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
Each applicant sought an extension of their stay period until September 30, 2024, to continue formulating plans of arrangement.
Imperial also requested authorization to terminate a retirement plan and post security for a vaping product license.
RBH sought a procedural amendment for employee grievances.
The court, finding no opposition and satisfied with the applicants' good faith, diligence, and sufficient resources, granted all requested relief, noting significant progress in ongoing mediation.
The court granted an unopposed stay extension in complex CCAA proceedings and directed the Monitors and Mediator to collaboratively develop plans of arrangement.
This endorsement concerns the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted an unopposed motion to extend the stay period until March 29, 2024.
Recognizing the complexity and the four-and-a-half-year duration of negotiations, the court directed the three court-appointed Monitors, in conjunction with the court-appointed Mediator, to collaborate and develop comprehensive Plans of Compromise or Arrangement.
The objective is to finalize plans that are fair and reasonable to all applicants and creditors, moving from observable activity to meaningful action.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $20,000.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the motion judge dated May 8, 2023.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.
Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the responding parties.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with no costs due to failure to file Costs Outline.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of McEwen J. dated January 5, 2023.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
The court declined to award costs to the successful responding parties because they failed to file a Costs Outline.
The Court of Appeal significantly reduced the successful parties' costs claim due to duplication of materials and disproportionality.
This costs endorsement followed grouped appeals concerning a wind-up order.
The appeals brought by Mark Libfeld and Corey Libfeld regarding the exclusion of the Shanontown transaction were unsuccessful.
The appeals brought by Jay Libfeld and Sheldon Libfeld concerning a procedural provision in the wind-up order were successful.
Consequently, Jay Libfeld and Sheldon Libfeld were entitled to costs from Mark Libfeld and Corey Libfeld.
The court found the amounts sought by Jay and Sheldon to be excessive due to duplication of materials and disproportionality to the necessary work for the appeals, and ordered a reduced costs schedule.
Partnership wind-up upheld but certification of compliance provision struck due to vagueness and acrimonious relationship.
Four brothers who equally owned a complex real estate development partnership experienced a complete breakdown in their business relationship, leading to a court-ordered wind-up and sale of the business.
Two brothers appealed the trial judge's decision to exclude a specific real estate transaction from the wind-up order, arguing breach of fiduciary duty.
The other two brothers appealed a provision in the judgment requiring them to certify compliance with the wind-up and disclosure orders.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals regarding the excluded transaction, deferring to the trial judge's factual findings that it was conducted outside the partnership.
However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the certification provision, striking it on the basis that requiring certification of vague obligations in a highly hostile environment would unfairly expose the parties to unwarranted contempt proceedings.
Contractual full indemnity costs provision does not override court's discretion to fix fair and reasonable costs.
Following a successful application regarding a restructuring support agreement, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of approximately $1.18 million based on a contractual covenant.
The respondents argued for partial indemnity costs.
The court held that while the contractual provision for full indemnity was an important factor, it did not override the court's discretion to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable.
Finding the hours docketed by the applicants' counsel excessive for a one-issue case, the court awarded a global all-inclusive costs amount of $800,000.
Lenders have unilateral right to extend the Outside Date in restructuring support agreement.
The applicants sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of the 'Outside Date' in a restructuring support agreement.
The respondent, a cannabis company, argued that any extension of the Outside Date required its initiation or consent.
The court found that the plain and ordinary meaning of the agreement allowed the lenders to automatically extend the Outside Date upon their written consent, acting reasonably, without the need for the respondent's consent.
The court granted the declaration sought by the applicants.
CCAA plan sanction denied because bar order and claim assignment provisions unfairly prejudiced non-settling defendants.
The Applicants, licensed cannabis producers, sought court approval and sanction of their second amended and restated plan of compromise and arrangement under the CCAA.
The Plan aimed to implement a settlement framework for multiple securities class actions arising from the Applicants' illegal cannabis growing operations.
While the court found the Allocation and Distribution Scheme reasonable and rejected KPMG's complaint about being excluded from voting, it refused to sanction the Plan.
The court held that the Plan's provisions regarding the assignment of claims against KPMG and the Judgment Reduction Provision in the Bar Order were not fair and reasonable to the non-settling defendants, as they failed to limit the non-settling defendants' liability to several liability.
Application for exemptive relief from minimum tender requirement in take-over bid dismissed.
ESW Capital, LLC applied for exemptive relief from the minimum tender requirement under the Securities Act in connection with its proposed take-over bid for Optiva Inc. The proposed bid was opposed by two other control block shareholders, Maple Rock and EdgePoint, who announced they would not tender their shares.
ESW sought to exclude their shares from the minimum tender calculation.
The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding no exceptional circumstances or abusive conduct by the target, bidder, or control block shareholders that would warrant altering the recalibrated bid regime and undermining minority shareholder choice.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with agreed costs of $10,000 to the respondent.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.
The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
On agreement of the parties, costs were fixed at $10,000 payable to the successful respondent.