Peter Kolla

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants sought a Funding Order to compel Securitization Parties and other secured lenders to fund a $40 million wind-down of the remaining entities.

The court dismissed the motion for the Funding Order, finding that section 11.01(b) of the CCAA expressly prohibits orders requiring the further advance of money or credit.

Consequently, the court also declined to approve a Key Employee Retention Plan, as it was dependent on the unavailable funding.

The court did, however, grant a temporary sealing order for the KERP details and extended the stay of proceedings to November 29, 2024.

The defendants moved to amend their statement of defence to plead issue estoppel and abuse of process based on a prior US arbitration award, and to dismiss the plaintiff's action on those grounds.

The plaintiff cross-moved to add the defendants' parent company as a party.

The court granted the defendants' motion to amend and dismissed the plaintiff's breach of contract and negligence claims, finding they were barred by issue estoppel as the arbitrator had already decided the core factual issues against the plaintiff.

However, the court refused to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding those issues were not determined in the arbitration.

The plaintiff's motion to add the parent company was dismissed as premature and legally untenable.

Cineplex and Cineworld entered into an Arrangement Agreement for Cineworld to acquire Cineplex for $2.8 billion.

Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and mandated theatre closures, Cineplex deferred payments to landlords and suppliers to manage liquidity.

Cineworld terminated the agreement, alleging Cineplex breached the ordinary course covenant.

The court found that Cineplex's cash management measures were commercially reasonable and did not breach the agreement, noting that the pandemic risk was allocated to Cineworld under the Material Adverse Effect clause.

Cineworld's termination was a repudiation, and Cineplex was awarded $1.24 billion in damages for lost synergies and transaction costs.

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 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.

The plaintiffs moved to add Chevron Canada Capital Company (CCCC) as a party defendant to their action seeking to enforce an Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendment was not legally tenable and disclosed no cause of action against CCCC, as the court had previously ruled that Chevron Canada's corporate veil could not be pierced.

Furthermore, the court found no basis for jurisdiction over CCCC, a Nova Scotia company with no assets or operations in Ontario, and noted that Rule 17.02(o) regarding necessary parties had been repealed.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce a US$9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation and its seventh-level indirect subsidiary, Chevron Canada Limited.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against Chevron Canada, arguing it was a separate legal entity not liable for the judgment.

The plaintiffs argued Chevron Canada's assets were exigible under the Execution Act or that the corporate veil should be pierced.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against Chevron Canada, finding the Execution Act does not override corporate separateness and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil absent allegations of wrongdoing by the subsidiary.

The plaintiffs also moved to strike Chevron's statement of defence.

The court struck defences relating to retroactive legislation and international law, but permitted defences alleging the Ecuadorian judgment was procured by fraud, bribery, and a denial of natural justice to proceed to trial.

In a foreign judgment recognition and enforcement appeal, the Court held that an enforcing forum need not establish a real and substantial connection between itself and either the dispute or the judgment debtor.

The only jurisdictional prerequisite is that the foreign court issuing the judgment had proper jurisdiction under the real and substantial connection framework or traditional grounds.

The Court also held that traditional presence-based jurisdiction over a corporate defendant is established where the corporation carries on business in the province and is served there.

Questions about ultimate enforceability against related corporate entities were left for later procedural stages.

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.

Following earlier reasons dismissing most applicants’ requests for interim advancement of legal expenses from a corporation, the court addressed the costs of the applications.

The respondent corporation sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $559,000 or alternatively partial indemnity costs, while the applicants argued that costs should remain in the cause of the underlying indemnity issue.

The court held that although the respondent was largely successful, payment of costs should be contingent on the outcome of the trial determining entitlement to indemnity.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs of $25,000 for a related motion and $165,000 for the applications, subject to specific allocations among applicants and exceptions for one successful applicant and another who withdrew participation.

The applicant sought to quash a municipal by-law repealing a heritage designation affecting its hotel property and sought related relief concerning heritage property tax rebates.

The municipality had approved demolition of the original designated heritage building in 1996 but did not repeal the designation by-law until 2012, when it enacted a repealing by-law retroactive to the demolition approval date pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicant alleged illegality and bad faith, arguing that the municipality failed to provide prior notice and enacted the repeal retroactively to defeat its tax rebate claims.

The court held that prior notice was not required where the Act mandated repeal following approval of demolition, and that the retroactive repeal was a reasonable step to comply belatedly with statutory requirements.

The applicant failed to establish bad faith or illegality, and further failed to meet additional eligibility criteria for the heritage tax rebate program.

The appellants appealed from the Court of Appeal's reversal of the CCAA court's decision regarding the priority of pension plan wind-up deficiency claims over court-ordered DIP financing charges.

The majority held that wind-up deficiencies under s. 75(1)(b) of the Pension Benefits Act were subject to a statutory deemed trust under s. 57(4), but that the deemed trust was superseded by the DIP charge by virtue of the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The majority further held that while the employer-administrator breached its fiduciary duty by failing to ensure the pension plan beneficiaries had adequate notice and representation in the CCAA proceedings, a constructive trust was not an appropriate remedy because the breach did not result in an identifiable asset that it would be unjust for the wrongdoer to retain.

Former directors, officers, and consultants of Look Communications Inc. sought interim advancement of their legal fees to defend against an action brought by Look alleging breach of fiduciary duty regarding bonus and equity cancellation payments.

The court held that s. 124(4) of the CBCA applies to actions brought directly by the corporation, requiring court approval for advancement.

The court found Look established a strong prima facie case of mala fides against the directors and officers, rebutting the presumption of good faith.

Advancement was denied for all applicants except one employee, Dolgonos, whose entitlement arose under an indemnity agreement not subject to s. 124(4).