Robert Cunningham

This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.

The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.

The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.

This endorsement concerns a joint motion brought by the court-appointed Monitors for JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. in their ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Monitors sought a Sanction Protocol Order to establish the date for the Sanction Hearing, ratify the litigation timetable, approve the dissemination of the Agenda and Sanction Hearing procedure, approve the Omnibus Sanction Hearing Notice, and set the deadline for Sanction Hearing Objection Notices.

The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with three orders signed.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.

These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.

The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.

This endorsement concerns three tobacco companies (JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) operating under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

Each applicant sought an extension of their stay period until September 30, 2024, to continue formulating plans of arrangement.

Imperial also requested authorization to terminate a retirement plan and post security for a vaping product license.

RBH sought a procedural amendment for employee grievances.

The court, finding no opposition and satisfied with the applicants' good faith, diligence, and sufficient resources, granted all requested relief, noting significant progress in ongoing mediation.

This endorsement concerns the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted an unopposed motion to extend the stay period until March 29, 2024.

Recognizing the complexity and the four-and-a-half-year duration of negotiations, the court directed the three court-appointed Monitors, in conjunction with the court-appointed Mediator, to collaborate and develop comprehensive Plans of Compromise or Arrangement.

The objective is to finalize plans that are fair and reasonable to all applicants and creditors, moving from observable activity to meaningful action.

The applicants, the maternal grandmother and her partner, sought primary care of the child, Addison, and defined parenting time for the child's parents.

The mother sought the child's return to her care, and the father sought primary care for himself.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to remain in the primary care of the applicants, citing concerns about the mother's alcohol abuse and the instability of her living situation, and the potential disruption to the child's established community ties if placed with the father.

Joint decision-making responsibility was ordered, with final authority for the maternal grandmother.

Specific parenting time schedules were set for both parents, and the father was ordered to pay child support.

The Children's Aid Society brought a temporary care hearing concerning the placement of two young children who were taken to a place of safety after their mother passed away.

Two competing plans for permanent care were presented: one by the children's maternal aunt residing in Georgia, and another by a police officer who responded to the initial call and his spouse.

The Society supported the maternal aunt's plan.

The court evaluated both plans, finding them both to be of high quality.

Ultimately, the court determined that it was in the children's best interests to be placed in the temporary care and custody of their maternal aunt, emphasizing the statutory preference for placement with a relative and the familial continuity she could provide.

The moving party brought a motion for a temporary order granting her exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and custody of the children.

The parties had been living separate and apart under the same roof for over a year.

The moving party alleged that the living arrangement had become unbearable due to tension and verbal abuse.

The court found that while there was tension and stress in the home, it did not rise to the level of warranting the dramatic and highly prejudicial effect of excluding the responding party from the home at this time.

The motion was dismissed.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.

Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.

Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.

The respondent, Maria Preciosa Ramos Doforno Sutton, brought a motion for interim spousal support and further financial disclosure from the applicant, Ronald John Sutton, following a 35-year marriage and separation in 2010.

The court found Ms. Sutton entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support due to her contributions to the marriage, economic disadvantage, and current health issues preventing self-sufficiency.

Mr. Sutton's arguments regarding Ms. Sutton's modest lifestyle in Portugal and the inadmissibility of an internet article on cost of living were rejected.

The court ordered Mr. Sutton to pay interim spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and to provide extensive financial disclosure regarding his assets, debts, and business interests.

The Children's Aid Society sought a six-month supervision order to place the child C. with the parent Ms. P., partner of the child's father Mr. P. The court, despite significant historical concerns regarding Mr. P.'s domestic violence, criminal record, mental health, and past failures to complete programs, reluctantly approved the order.

The decision was based on the Society's strong recommendation, positive reports of parental cooperation, and the need to avoid moving C. to a new foster home.

The court imposed additional conditions requiring Mr. P. to undergo psychiatric assessment, complete programs, and ensuring Ms. P. supervises all his interactions with both C. and his half-sibling K. Furthermore, Mr. P. was explicitly prohibited from supervising Ms. W.'s (C.'s mother) access.

The Children's Aid Society sought a disposition order following a finding that two young children were in need of protection due to severe neglect, unsanitary living conditions, and parental substance abuse.

The mother sought the return of the children to her care, with the support of the maternal grandmother.

The court found that the mother and grandmother had failed to demonstrate any meaningful rehabilitation or ability to integrate parenting instruction, and that returning the children would expose them to an unacceptable risk of harm.

The court ordered Crown wardship for the younger child with no access order, and granted custody of the older child to the paternal grandmother, finding these dispositions to be in the children's best interests.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, retroactive child support, and the right to obtain passports and travel with the children without the respondent father's consent.

The parties agreed on sole custody and ongoing child support based on the father's 2014 income.

The court denied the mother's request for unrestricted travel mobility due to concerns about safeguarding the father's access.

Given the father's limited past involvement and history, the court ordered a graduated access schedule starting with six months of supervised access.

The court also awarded retroactive child support of $10,276 for the period after the father obtained higher-paying employment, but declined to order contribution to extraordinary expenses as premature.

In a child protection proceeding, the applicant society sought summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether courts hearing such motions may exercise the expanded fact‑finding powers available under Rule 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The court held that Rule 16 does not confer jurisdiction to weigh evidence, assess credibility, or draw inferences in the same manner as the civil rules because the legislature has not amended the family rules to provide those powers.

The Hryniak “cultural shift” applies only to the extent of interpreting existing jurisdiction broadly, but it does not create new fact‑finding powers absent legislative authorization.

Accordingly, summary judgment motions in family and child protection matters under Rule 16 are limited to determining whether a genuine issue requiring a trial exists based solely on the evidentiary record.