Rebecca Kennedy

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 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.

The applicant, GuestLogix Inc., sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for a stay of proceedings, the appointment of a Monitor, and authorization for super-priority charges.

The court found the applicant to be an insolvent debtor company with over $5 million in unsecured liabilities, making it eligible for CCAA protection.

The court granted the stay and the requested Administration and Directors' Charges.

However, due to a potential conflict of interest raised by a secured creditor, the court declined to appoint the proposed Monitor, Deloitte Restructuring Inc., and instead appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicant sought to add its highly integrated subsidiary, GuestLogix Ireland Limited, as an applicant to facilitate a comprehensive sale and investor solicitation process.

The applicant also sought approval for an Administration Charge, a Directors' Charge, and an Interim Lender's Charge to secure interim financing of up to US $3,000,000.

The court granted the unopposed motion, finding the addition of the subsidiary appropriate and the requested charges and financing necessary and reasonable under the CCAA.