Robert William Staley

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum to correct an error in paragraph 11 of its reasons for judgment released on November 17, 2005.

The court amended the reasons to replace the reference to 'Subordinated Debenture Holders' with 'Senior Debt Holders' in the first two sentences of the paragraph.

The appellants, holders of Convertible Notes of Stelco, appealed an order establishing an expedited claims process to determine inter-creditor subordination claims in a CCAA restructuring.

The appellants argued they were entitled to a full civil trial process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CCAA plan explicitly contemplated a timely process to determine entitlements to the turnover proceeds, and the supervising judge's discretionary scheduling order was entitled to deference.

The moving party, THICC, sought a stay of a Master's order requiring the Minister of Health to file a section 10 record that included THICC's allegedly confidential information, pending an appeal of that order.

The underlying judicial review challenged the Minister's approval of hospital infrastructure plans.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the interpretation of a prior consent confidentiality order, irreparable harm if the information was disclosed before the appeal, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay to preserve the appeal's utility.

In a CCAA restructuring of Stelco Inc., the appellants, representing subordinated debenture holders, sought to be classified as a separate class of creditors for voting purposes on the proposed plan.

They argued their interests conflicted with senior debt holders due to a turnover payment provision requiring them to remit distributions to senior debt holders until the senior debt was paid in full.

The supervising judge dismissed the motion, finding no material distinction in their legal rights vis-à-vis the debtor company.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, affirming that creditor classification under the CCAA is determined by the creditors' legal rights in relation to the debtor company, not their rights as creditors in relation to each other.

In a CCAA proceeding regarding Stelco Inc., the Informal Independent Converts' Committee appealed an order denying them a separate class of creditors.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error or error in principle in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellants lacked a different legal or practical interest from other unsecured creditors vis-à-vis the debtor.

The receiver of Ravelston Corporation Limited obtained an order allowing it to attorn to the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal court and plead not guilty to criminal charges on behalf of the corporation.

A shareholder and creditor appealed the order, arguing it involved future rights under s. 193(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, or alternatively sought leave to appeal under s. 193(e).

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding the order did not involve future rights but merely directed how present rights should be exercised.

The court also refused leave to appeal, concluding the proposed appeal lacked prima facie merit as the supervising judge made no error in principle in exercising his discretion.

The applicants, chartered accountants charged with professional misconduct, brought a motion for review of an order dismissing their request to compel the respondent's Professional Conduct Committee to file a record of proceedings under section 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the committee's power to investigate and charge is not a 'statutory power of decision' as defined in the Act, and therefore section 10 does not apply.

The applicants sought judicial review of the investigative process leading to charges by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

On a motion to determine who must file the record under Rule 68.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the Committee was not acting as a court or tribunal in its investigative function.

Therefore, Rule 68.04(1)(b) applied, requiring the applicants to prepare and file the record.

The motion was dismissed.