Peter J. Osborne

The applicants, Pride Group Holdings Inc. et al., sought several orders under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), including a Turn-Over Order for securitized assets, allocation of Monitor's review costs, and approval and vesting orders for two properties (Cornwall and Abbotsford) and a factoring portfolio.

The approval and vesting relief for the properties and factoring portfolio were unopposed.

The Turn-Over Order was resolved through negotiations and presented to the court on consent.

The court-appointed Monitor recommended all sought relief.

The court granted all requested orders, finding them appropriate and within its jurisdiction under section 11 of the CCAA, noting the Monitor's scrutiny and the benefit to stakeholders.

The Court-appointed Receiver sought approval of its second report, activities, professional fees, and proposed distributions, including a significant distribution to RBC as a secured creditor.

The Debtor, 170 Willowdale Investments Corp., opposed the distribution to RBC, arguing that RBC lacked a registered security interest in the real property whose sale generated the proceeds, and thus had no priority claim to those proceeds.

The court found that the Debtor was in default of its obligations to RBC, and that RBC's general security agreement (GSA) granted a valid and perfected security interest in all of the Debtor's present and after-acquired personal property, including money and proceeds from the sale of any assets.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for a land lease community, the senior secured lender brought a motion to appoint a receiver.

The CCAA stay of proceedings was expiring, DIP financing was exhausted, and no viable restructuring plan or purchaser had emerged.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver to stabilize the community, ensure continuation of essential water and sewage services, and facilitate a credit bid by the secured lender.

A separate unopposed motion to lift the stay to allow repossession of unused modular homes was also granted.

The Court-Appointed Receiver sought an administration order, approval of its First Report, a vesting order for the sale of the Debtor's property, and sealing relief for confidential appendices.

The Debtor, through its principal, initially indicated opposition and sought an adjournment to obtain legal advice and present evidence of purported second mortgages.

The court denied the adjournment, finding no evidence of other registered mortgages or a basis to compromise the first mortgage.

The court approved the sale, administration, and sealing orders, concluding the property was widely exposed and the sale was in the best interest of the estate.

The applicant, Metropolitan Partners Group Administration, LLC, sought an order appointing a receiver over the property of the respondent, International Credit Experts Inc., due to the respondent's defaults on a financing agreement.

The respondent opposed the appointment and requested a third adjournment, arguing for a private sale of its loan portfolio.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the matter urgent given the procedural history and the respondent's conduct, including a disputed guarantee and asset transfer.

The court determined it was just and convenient to appoint a receiver, emphasizing the respondent's continued defaults, lack of financial transparency, and the need for a court-supervised sale process to maximize stakeholder recovery.

A sealing order for commercially sensitive information was also granted.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants sought three orders: approval of a factoring portfolio purchase agreement, approval for distribution of proceeds from a property sale, and permission for a creditor to sell certain vehicles.

The court approved the distribution of Chehalis property proceeds to Roynat.

For the Regions vehicles, the court granted the order allowing Regions to take possession, setting a 30-day retrieval period and approving storage costs of $35/day.

The motion for approval of the JD Factors Purchase Agreement was adjourned to a later date, as Mitsubishi HC Capital Canada Inc. objected, claiming ownership of the receivables and requiring more time to prepare its position.

The applicant, a mortgagee, sought the appointment of a receiver over the respondents' real property due to mortgage defaults and alleged insolvency.

The respondents opposed, arguing the remedy was not just or convenient and that the proposed receiver had a conflict of interest due to an existing receivership over adjacent lands with related easement disputes.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's security was protected, there was no evidence of property depreciation, and the applicant had not pursued existing mortgage enforcement proceedings.

The court also noted that appointing the same firm as receiver for both properties would create a conflict given the ongoing disputes regarding a shared easement.

The Body Shop Canada Limited (TBS Canada) brought a motion seeking three orders: authorization to continue its Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) proposal proceeding under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), approval of a Sale and Investor Solicitation Process (SISP), and a Discharge and Termination Order for the Proposal Trustee.

The court granted all requested relief, finding that the conversion to CCAA was appropriate given the company's insolvency, the ongoing UK sale process for its parent company, and the CCAA's flexibility to maximize stakeholder value and preserve the going concern.

The court also approved the SISP, the continuation of existing charges (administration, D&O, KERP), and the fees and releases for the Proposal Trustee and counsel.

A former employee of The Body Shop Canada Limited brought a motion in the company's bankruptcy proceedings seeking to be appointed as the Representative for all terminated Canadian employees, and to have her counsel appointed as Representative Counsel.

The moving party sought an order that included a mandatory opt-out mechanism and broad immunity from liability for the Representative and Representative Counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims of the terminated employees were relatively straightforward, the class was small and easily identifiable, and the proposed opt-out mechanism and broad immunity were inappropriate in the circumstances.

BZAM Ltd. and Cortland Credit Lending Corporation brought a motion for security for costs against Final Bell Holdings International Ltd. within an ongoing CCAA proceeding.

Final Bell had initiated a claim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation against BZAM and seeking damages and equitable relief, including a constructive trust.

The court determined that Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, concerning security for costs, applies to claims within CCAA proceedings, and that Cortland, as a directly affected stakeholder, was entitled to seek such security.

Finding that Final Bell was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award, the court ordered Final Bell to post security for costs in favour of BZAM ($350,000) and Cortland ($147,000).

Additionally, Final Bell was ordered to pay the costs of the motion to BZAM ($20,000) and Cortland ($8,500).

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) initiated receivership proceedings against 1340182 Ontario Limited and Kazembe & Associates Professional Corporation.

The court-appointed Receiver, MNP Ltd., sought approval of its second report, fees, and authorization to assign 1340182 Ontario Limited into bankruptcy, and to distribute proceeds from the sale of a property.

A key dispute arose regarding the priority of mortgages on the property, specifically between Arthur Bryan, 923944 Ontario Ltd., and CIBC.

Bryan claimed his earlier mortgage was fraudulently discharged and sought declaratory relief to restore its first-ranking priority.

The court dismissed Bryan's cross-motion, finding that even if the discharge was fraudulent, the subsequent mortgages of 923944 Ontario Ltd. and CIBC were valid and enforceable under the Land Titles Act, as they were not fraudulent instruments and the mortgagees had no actual or imputed knowledge of fraud.

The court approved the Receiver's report and authorized distribution according to the registered priorities (923944 Ontario Ltd. first, CIBC second).

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 Court-appointed Receiver of Antibe Therapeutics Inc. brought a motion seeking approval for a Sale Process Order, a Claims Procedure Order, and an Ancillary Order.

The Ancillary Order included approval of the Receiver's First Report, its activities, and its fees and disbursements, as well as the recognition and enforcement of an Arbitral Award rendered in favour of Nuance Pharma Ltd. The court granted all requested relief, finding the proposed sale process appropriate, the claims procedure fair and transparent, and the Receiver's activities and fees reasonable.

The Arbitral Award was recognized as binding and enforceable under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the UNCITRAL Model Law, as adopted by Saskatchewan legislation, given that the award debtor acknowledged its finality.

The applicants, a group of related companies under CCAA protection, sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order at a comeback hearing.

The requested relief included extending the stay of proceedings, increasing the maximum principal amounts for the DIP Facility, Administration Charge, and Directors’ Charge, approving a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) with a super priority charge, sealing the KERP summary, and maintaining the status quo of Indiva’s Excise Licence.

The court granted all requested relief, finding it appropriate and necessary for the restructuring process, with no opposition from any party or the Monitor.

This endorsement concerns a hearing regarding the bankruptcy of Yen Thi Duong and 18960088 Ontario Inc. The court accepted a proposed release plan for Ms. Duong, with the consent of the Trustee in Bankruptcy and the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

The release was granted subject to specific terms, including Ms. Duong's adult daughter acting as surety, posting a $10,000 performance bond, surrender of Ms. Duong's passport, compliance with obligations under section 158 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and attendance for examination under section 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court directed Ms. Duong's release from custody upon fulfillment of the bond and passport surrender.

The applicant, Coach USA Inc., as proposed foreign representative of several Canadian debtors, sought an Initial Recognition Order and a Supplemental Order under Part IV of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and the Courts of Justice Act.

The relief included recognizing US Chapter 11 cases as foreign main proceedings, recognizing US First Day Orders, granting a stay of proceedings in Canada, appointing an Information Officer, and granting priority charges (Administration, D&O, DIP).

The court granted the unopposed application, finding that the US Chapter 11 cases were foreign main proceedings, rebutting the presumption of COMI in Canada due to the integrated nature of the operations.

The court also approved the stay, recognition of US orders, appointment of Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc. as Information Officer, and the proposed charges.

The Plaintiffs moved for approval of Pierringer settlement agreements with Third Party Defendants.

The Citibank Defendants consented to the approval but cross-moved for conditions ensuring continued discovery rights, including the right to examine Michael Yurkovich as a party.

The court approved the Pierringer agreements, imposing the condition that Third Party Defendants retain their obligations as if they remained parties, specifically granting the Citibank Defendants discovery and cross-examination rights due to the non-arm's-length relationship between the Plaintiffs and Third Party Defendants.

The applicants, a group of cannabis companies, sought first-day relief under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a severe liquidity crisis and default on senior debt obligations.

The court granted all requested initial orders, including a declaration that the applicants are CCAA companies, the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (PwC) as Monitor, approval of a Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) facility of up to $900,000, an initial 10-day stay of proceedings, relief from certain securities law requirements, and the granting of administration, DIP lender's, and directors' charges.

The relief was supported by the existing senior secured creditor, SNDL Inc., and the proposed Monitor, PwC.

The court-appointed Receiver of The Lion's Share Group Inc. (LS), a real estate investment company in insolvency, sought an order declaring certain promissory notes as valid charges on real property, requiring their registration, and expanding the receivership to include The Windrose Group Inc. The promissory notes, issued by LS to borrowers, included provisions for registration on title upon default, but the Land Registry Office required a court order.

Objecting noteholders requested an adjournment due to short service.

The court granted the Receiver's requests, finding the notes created equitable mortgages and that the matter was urgent due to the risk of asset dissipation.

The court also approved the expansion of the receivership and the Receiver's First Report, while providing a comeback hearing for affected parties to address any prejudice.

The Court-appointed Receiver sought approval for three orders concerning a large condominium project in receivership: a Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) Approval Order, a Reconfiguration and Letters of Credit (LC) Order, and a Holdback Release Order.

The Reconfiguration and LC Order and Holdback Release Order were unopposed.

The SISP Approval Order was opposed by subordinate lenders (Coco Parties) primarily due to a $1.2 billion minimum bid threshold, which they argued would intentionally cause the SISP to fail.

The court approved all three orders, deferring to the Receiver's business judgment and the Senior Secured Lenders' position, noting the Coco Parties provided no evidence to support their objections and were contractually subordinated.