Robert Kennedy

The debtor applicants sought court approval for a pre-packaged sale ('quick flip') of their assets to a new company owned by existing management, pursuant to section 36 of the CCAA.

The proposed transaction was supported by the senior secured creditor but opposed by a subordinate secured creditor, BDC Capital Inc., who was excluded from the sales process and given minimal notice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the debtor failed to meet its burden under sections 36(3) and 36(4) of the CCAA.

The court held that the sales process lacked transparency, failed to make good faith efforts to sell to unrelated parties after the senior debt was purchased at a discount, and did not demonstrate that the proposed consideration was superior to other potential offers.

The decision addresses two competing motions for the appointment of representative counsel for investors in a receivership proceeding involving Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. The court reviews the procedural background, the need for representative counsel, and the competing proposals from Aird & Berlis LLP and Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.

The court ultimately appoints Aird & Berlis LLP as representative counsel, finding their approach and fee structure preferable for efficiency, transparency, and certainty.

This decision concerns motions brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and related applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for interim relief in their restructuring proceedings.

The court addresses requests for approval of interim distributions, payment of direct costs, application of deferred payments for working capital, and approval of certain activities of the Monitor.

The court grants the requested relief, finding it necessary to maintain liquidity and continue the wind-down process, and holds that the proposed mechanisms are equitable and consistent with the CCAA’s remedial objectives.

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault against his stepdaughter.

Because the jury's verdict was ambiguous regarding which of the two alleged incidents they found proven, the sentencing judge was required to make independent findings of fact for the purpose of sentencing.

Applying the Ferguson framework, the court assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found the first incident proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but harboured a reasonable doubt regarding the second incident.

The court directed counsel to provide further submissions on sentence based on these factual findings.

The appellants, The Rehill Company Limited and its owners, appealed a summary judgment that enforced their personal guarantees for corporate debt owed to Castle Building Centres Group Ltd. and dismissed their counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding a lack of due diligence and that the evidence would not have affected the outcome.

The court upheld the motion judge's findings that the debt was owed to the respondent, the rebate claim was not a genuine issue for trial, there was no breach of a subordination agreement, and the personal guarantees were continuing and enforceable.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The Applicants in a CCAA proceeding moved for a reverse vesting order to approve a transaction with a purchaser related to a secured creditor, Marzilli.

The transaction would vest out the first-ranking security interest of another creditor, 212, and transfer its debt to a residual entity with no assets. 212 opposed the motion, arguing its debt assumption was part of the stalking horse bid that set the floor for the sales process.

The court applied the Third Eye and Harte Gold factors, finding that 212 had not consented to the vesting out of its interest and that the equities favoured 212.

The court dismissed the motion for the reverse vesting order, concluding it was not equitable to extinguish 212's first-ranking security interest under the circumstances.

The applicants sought an amended and restated initial order under the CCAA, including approval of a stalking horse sales process, a Key Employee Retention Plan, an increased administration charge, and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The court granted most of the requested relief, finding it necessary for the restructuring and supported by the Monitor.

However, the court dismissed the applicants' request to stay a creditor's action against three directors on their personal guarantees, ruling that section 11.03(2) of the CCAA expressly prohibits staying actions against directors on guarantees relating to the company's obligations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce personal guarantees executed by the individual defendants for the corporate defendant's debt of over $2.3 million.

The corporate defendant was in receivership.

The individual defendants raised numerous defenses, including an alleged oral agreement to waive the guarantees, breach of a subordination agreement, and a counterclaim for unpaid rebates and damages for forcing the company into receivership.

The court rejected all defenses, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and granted summary judgment while dismissing the counterclaim.

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 CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending enterprise, class members in Ontario consumer class actions moved for approval of three settlement agreements forming part of a broader global resolution of litigation involving the debtor companies, their directors and officers, and related parties.

The settlements resolved certain class claims and partially resolved a third‑party lender claim, providing more than $10 million in recovery with potential participation in future litigation proceeds.

The court applied established settlement approval factors including likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel recommendations, absence of objections, and arm’s‑length negotiations.

The court concluded that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and the restructuring process.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that a lease amending agreement was a duly constituted and executed standalone agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, rejecting the appellant's argument that it had an obligation under a proposed letter to execute the agreement regardless of whether the landlord waived a condition in its favour.