Rebecca Joyce Kennedy

The Receiver brought a motion under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to recover payments made by the insolvent debtor company to various parties, primarily family members and a former employee, in the year prior to bankruptcy.

The court found that the company was insolvent during the relevant period.

Payments to several family members and a non-arm's length salesperson were ordered to be repaid as they were found to be either transfers at undervalue or preferential payments.

Claims against a landlord, an independent contractor, and a long-time manager were dismissed as the transactions were either supported by consideration or were arm's length.

The People's Trust Company, as assignee of Enlightened Funding Corporation, brought a motion seeking an order to compel Deloitte Restructuring Inc., the court-appointed Receiver of Velocity Asset and Credit Corporation and 926749 Ontario Ltd., to produce documents relevant to the personal bankruptcy application against Hugh Waddell, the principal of the Respondents.

Despite Waddell's non-cooperation and previous adjournments, the court dismissed the motion.

The court found that the Receiver's appointment order, specifically section 4(m) concerning information sharing, was not broad enough to authorize production for purposes outside the receivership's primary objectives.

The court emphasized that the documents were sought to prosecute the bankruptcy application against Waddell, not to advance the receivership of the Respondents.

The court noted that other avenues exist within the Bankruptcy Application to compel such production.

The moving party, AutoLoans, sought a declaration of ownership over four vehicles, asserting a purchase agreement with Clonsilla Auto Sales and Leasing.

The court-appointed Receiver, Deloitte Restructuring Inc., opposed, arguing the transaction was a financing arrangement and, alternatively, a preferential transfer under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the executed Fixed Rate Installment Notes (FRINs) constituted a binding financing transaction that was not legally displaced by subsequent backdated purchase documents.

Consequently, the vehicles remained property of the debtors, and AutoLoans' motion was dismissed.

The Applicant, a mortgagee, sought to vary a previously consented receivership order concerning three properties (Harwood Properties) in Ajax.

The original order, which appointed a receiver, included provisions requiring consultation with the Town of Ajax on sales and a new development agreement with a right of re-purchase for the Town.

These terms were agreed upon in exchange for the Town's consent to the receivership and a stay of its own action regarding a re-purchase right and priority dispute.

The Applicant argued that changed circumstances, specifically the unacceptability of the development agreement terms to potential purchasers, justified varying the order and determining the priority of its mortgage over the Town's re-purchase right.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the finality of consent orders and that the Applicant had agreed to the terms, which resolved a pending priority dispute.

The court found no misrepresentation by the Town that would vitiate the Applicant's consent and held that the comeback clause should not be used to prejudice parties who relied on the original order.

The applicant brought a motion to compel a witness, his brother, to answer questions and produce documents refused during a Rule 39.03 examination.

The examination was conducted to gather evidence for a pending contempt motion against the trustees of family trusts for failing to produce accounting documents.

The court ordered the witness to answer the questions, finding that the information sought regarding certain mortgages had a semblance of relevancy to the issues on the contempt motion.

The court-appointed Administrator of an estate brought a motion to appoint an investigator to review the accounts and assets of two intertwined family estates.

The estates had been mired in years of acrimonious litigation among the sibling beneficiaries, with allegations of breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated funds.

Finding that the accounts were complex, significant information was missing, and the parties were highly dysfunctional, the court granted the motion and appointed the investigator to provide a neutral analysis.

The Foreign Representative of Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated and its Canadian subsidiaries applied under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for recognition of U.S. Chapter 11 proceedings as foreign main proceedings and for recognition and enforcement of U.S. orders, including a super-priority debtor-in-possession (DIP) charge and a prepackaged plan of reorganization.

The court granted the application, finding the U.S. to be the centre of main interests (COMI) for the Canadian entities despite their registered offices being in Canada, due to integrated management, operations, and financial functions.

The court recognized the foreign orders, including the DIP charge, as consistent with CCAA principles and not contrary to public policy, and found no material prejudice to Canadian interests.

The request to dispense with the mandatory notice publication was denied.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a post-trial motion to compel the defendants to cooperate in executing the sale and property management issues directed in a previous judgment, which found the plaintiffs to be 50% beneficial owners of the subject property.

At the hearing, the parties agreed on the form of the formal judgment and the mechanics for listing the property, managing it in the interim, and handling rental income.

The court ordered the defendants to cooperate with the plaintiffs in selling the property and to pay rents into court or trust, less agreed-upon expenses, with an order going as submitted by mutual agreement.

Following a successful 7-day trial regarding a commercial property dispute, the plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of their Rule 49 offer, and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court found the plaintiffs' offer was more favourable to the defendants than the final judgment.

Noting the defendants' repeated failures to produce documents and delay tactics over the 9-year litigation, the court awarded the plaintiffs $650,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant, in its capacity as court-appointed receiver and manager, brought an unopposed motion in CCAA proceedings for an extension of the stay period, a DIP amendment, approval of a Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP), and approval of the Monitor's Fourth Report.

The court found that the parties were acting in good faith and with due diligence, and that the company had sufficient liquidity to maintain operations.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The plaintiffs and defendants, former friends, invested in real estate together.

The plaintiffs claimed a 50% beneficial interest in a property registered solely in the defendants' names, based on an oral agreement and a $69,000 contribution.

The court found the oral agreement enforceable due to part performance, overcoming the Statute of Frauds, and ordered the property sold and proceeds divided.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' libel claim regarding false accusations of criminal conduct, finding the publication was de minimis and caused no actual harm.

The action was held to be within the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion in the context of CCAA proceedings.

The court approved the activities and conduct of the Monitor as described in the Second Report, finding the requested relief appropriate in the circumstances.

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 applicant, in its capacity as court-appointed receiver, brought an unopposed motion in a CCAA proceeding for an Amended and Restated Initial Order.

The requested relief included extending the stay of proceedings, appointing a Chief Restructuring Officer, approving a $2 million debtor-in-possession credit facility, and increasing various court-ordered charges.

The applicant also sought a sealing order for confidential appendices containing individual consultant compensation and sensitive commercial information.

The court granted the motion, finding the relief reasonable and appropriate, and applied the Sherman Estate test to grant the sealing order.

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 court-appointed receiver of MJardin Group, Inc. brought a motion for a discharge order to facilitate the transition from receivership proceedings to proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The proposed order provided for the receiver's discharge upon the issuance of a CCAA Initial Order, while preserving the receiver's charges.

As the CCAA Initial Order had been granted, the court granted the motion and signed the discharge order.

The applicant, in its capacity as court-appointed receiver of Bridging Finance Inc., brought a creditor-initiated application for an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) in respect of the respondent cannabis companies.

The respondents were indebted to the applicant for approximately $178 million and were in default.

The court found that the respondents were debtor companies to which the CCAA applies and granted the Initial Order, including a stay of proceedings, the appointment of a monitor, and the approval of administration, DIP lender, and directors' charges.

At a come-back hearing following an initial CCAA order, the applicants sought to extend the stay of proceedings, increase DIP financing, and confer investigative powers on the Monitor.

A party representing the investigatees sought an adjournment regarding the ratification of a general partner and the investigative powers.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the restructuring depended on the DIP financing which required the investigative powers, and that the investigatees would have opportunities to be heard during the investigation.

The requested relief was granted.

The applicants, a group of real estate development entities facing a liquidity crisis, applied for an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The court found the applicants insolvent and granted the initial order, including a stay of proceedings extended to related partnership entities.

The court also approved debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing from Halmont Properties Corporation, authorized payments to critical suppliers, appointed Ernst & Young Inc. as Monitor, and appointed Kesmark as Chief Restructuring Officer to stabilize operations and facilitate restructuring.