Peter David Ruby

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, LoyaltyOne, Co. and its Monitor sought a declaration that a Tax Matters Agreement (TMA) was not binding or was void as a transfer at undervalue (TUV), and sought to disclaim the TMA to secure a $96 million tax refund.

Bread Financial Holdings, Inc. (formerly ADS) cross-moved to set aside the disclaimer, asserting its entitlement to the refund under the TMA.

The court ruled that LoyaltyOne was bound by the TMA, the TMA was not void as a TUV, and the disclaimer was not approved.

The court found it premature to determine the specific nature of Bread's rights to the refund.

The Liquidator of Northumberland General Insurance Company brought an unopposed motion to pass its accounts, approve its activities and fees, and obtain a declaration regarding the ownership of the company's shares.

The company had been in liquidation since 1985.

The Court approved the accounts and fees, finding them reasonable.

The Court also found it had jurisdiction under the Winding-Up and Restructuring Act and the Courts of Justice Act to issue a declaratory order regarding share ownership to assist in the potential distribution of a surplus.

After reviewing the complex corporate history and two alternative chains of ownership, the Court declared that Brian Reeve is the owner of 100% of the share capital of Northumberland.

The applicant, McEwan Enterprises Inc., sought approval of a related-party transaction under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to sell substantially all of its assets to a newly formed company owned by its current shareholders.

The motion was opposed by a landlord who had not reached a consensual arrangement with the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mandatory requirements of section 36(4) of the CCAA were not met, as no good faith efforts were made to sell the assets to non-related persons and the consideration was not shown to be superior to a receivership and bankruptcy alternative.

Crystallex International Corporation and Tenor Special Situation I, LP sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order that partially dismissed Crystallex's request to seal certain financial information in the Monitor's Thirty-Third Report.

The motion judge had applied the Sierra Club test and found the evidence for sealing speculative.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious and the case was not of significance to the practice, upholding the motion judge's discretionary order.

Crystallex International Corporation brought a motion for a sealing order to keep confidential certain financial information and strategic details contained in the Monitor's 33rd Report, including cash balance, litigation expenses, sanctions impact, and confidential mediation disputes.

The Ad Hoc Committee of senior noteholders and the Trustee opposed the sealing of financial information, arguing for the importance of disclosure in CCAA proceedings.

The court applied the Sierra Club test, which requires demonstrating a real and substantial risk to an important commercial interest, no reasonable alternative to sealing, and the salutary effects outweighing the deleterious effects on the open-court principle.

The court found Crystallex's evidence, consisting of bald and speculative statements, insufficient to meet this high evidentiary burden, and therefore dismissed the motion for a sealing order.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its amended statement of claim in an action for outstanding sales commissions.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing estoppel, expiry of limitation periods, and non-compensable prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding no positive representation to support estoppel, that the amendments were particulars of existing claims rather than new causes of action, and that any prejudice regarding internal resources could be managed through a discovery plan.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Monitor appealed a Claims Officer's decision allowing a landlord's claim for liquidated damages under a lease guarantee.

The Monitor argued the Claims Officer failed to consider a lease provision regarding the sale of the property.

The landlord cross-appealed the Claims Officer's finding that it breached a duty to be forthright by failing to disclose the property's foreclosure.

The Superior Court granted the Monitor's appeal, remitting the quantification issue back to the Claims Officer due to an error of law in contractual interpretation.

The court dismissed the landlord's cross-appeal, affirming that creditors owe a duty of forthrightness in a CCAA claims process.

The applicant, Trader Corporation, operating digital marketplaces for vehicles, alleged copyright infringement by the respondent, CarGurus, Inc., a competitor, for posting photos taken by Trader's photographers on its own website.

Trader sought a declaration of infringement, a permanent injunction, and statutory damages.

The court found that Trader owned copyright in 152,532 photos and that CarGurus infringed them.

The fair dealing defence was rejected, and CarGurus was not considered an "information location tool" exempt from statutory damages.

However, the court found that the minimum statutory damages of $500 per photo would be grossly disproportionate and reduced the award to $2 per photo, totaling $305,064.

Requests for punitive damages and a permanent injunction were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a Crown corporation, sought to replace its commercial lending software and entered into an agreement with the defendants based on representations that the defendants had an existing, mature 'out of the box' software product.

The implementation failed, and the plaintiff discovered the software did not actually exist but was still in development.

The plaintiff terminated the agreement and sued for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The court found that the defendants knowingly made false representations about the existence and capabilities of their software, which induced the plaintiff to enter the agreement and waste 15 months.

The court awarded the plaintiff over $44 million in damages for incremental costs and lost economic benefits caused by the delay, and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for unpaid development charges.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

Various parties brought motions seeking reconsideration or clarification of a prior joint allocation decision determining the distribution of $7.3 billion in escrow among debtor estates in multinational insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties argued that aspects of the allocation methodology—including treatment of bond guarantee claims, certain asset sale proceeds, intercompany claims, tax claims, and settled claims—required amendment or clarification.

The court reiterated that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and rejected most requests because the issues either had been addressed at trial or could have been raised earlier.

Limited clarification was granted regarding the treatment of bondholder claims against guarantors and recognition of certain court‑approved settled pre‑filing claims that had been paid.

Other requested clarifications or amendments were denied.

The defendants moved under rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a claim alleging failure to give reasonable notice of non‑renewal of a long‑standing contractual relationship.

The plaintiff had been a member of the defendants’ partner network for approximately twenty years under an agreement renewable annually at the defendants’ sole discretion.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants exercised their discretionary renewal power unreasonably by refusing renewal without any notice.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The organizing principle of good faith in contractual performance, recognized in Bhasin v. Hrynew, did not foreclose the possibility that discretionary renewal powers might need to be exercised reasonably in certain circumstances.

In a joint cross-border insolvency trial concerning the allocation of approximately $7.3 billion in lockbox funds from the sale of global business lines and residual intellectual property, the court interpreted the Master R&D Agreement as an operating transfer-pricing document that granted limited licence rights but did not govern post-insolvency allocation.

The court rejected both the position that one Canadian debtor owned all sale proceeds by virtue of legal title and the position that the EMEA debtors jointly owned all intellectual property by operation of law.

Applying unjust enrichment principles and the broad remedial jurisdiction available in CCAA proceedings, the court held that a just result required a pro rata allocation among debtor estates based on allowed claims.

The court further directed that duplicate claims be counted only once for allocation purposes, that intercompany claims be included, and that interim distribution proposals be brought forward.

The appeal addressed whether a federal regulator had statutory authority to implement a market-based regime requiring negotiations over compensation for retransmission of local television signals.

The majority held the proposed regime exceeded statutory authority and conflicted with the copyright scheme governing retransmission rights and exceptions.

The dissent would have found a sufficient statutory basis and no operational conflict between the two statutes.

The appeal was allowed, with costs throughout.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to stay an Ontario action in favour of arbitration and forum selection clauses contained in an Additional Rights Agreement.

The dispute arose over the termination of the respondents' management rights following the sale of certain theatre assets.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, applying the competence-competence principle.

The Court held that where it is arguable that a dispute falls within the terms of an arbitration agreement, the court should grant a stay and leave the determination of the arbitrator's jurisdiction to the arbitrator.

The action was stayed pending the resolution of the arbitration proceedings in California.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified a four-story parking garage from the commercial property class to the residential property class.

The parking garage was used exclusively by residents of adjacent condominium towers under long-term license agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the property was 'used for residential purposes' within the meaning of section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 282/98, as the ultimate use of the property was residential parking appurtenant to living accommodations, regardless of ownership.

The tenants appealed a decision regarding a rent decrease related to property taxes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the tenants' constitutional issue due to lack of an evidentiary record and failure to provide proper notice to the Minister of Justice under s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court also dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the Tribunal erred in initially dismissing the landlord's application based on a delay in filing evidence, as the delay was caused by the City and did not prejudice the tenants.

The appellant Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) sought access to the power poles of the respondent provincially regulated electric power utilities to support cable television transmission lines.

The CRTC ordered the utilities to grant access, interpreting 'the supporting structure of a transmission line' in s. 43(5) of the Telecommunications Act to include the utilities' power poles.

The Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the decision on a correctness standard and held that s. 43(5) does not give the CRTC jurisdiction over the power poles of provincially regulated electric power companies.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, confirming that the standard of review is correctness and that s. 43(5) cannot bear the broad meaning given to it by the CRTC.