Robin B. Schwill

An appeal from a Superior Court decision regarding the provability of a former employee's profit-sharing claim in the bankruptcy of a real estate development company.

The trustee disallowed the claim on the grounds that it was an equity claim and too contingent and remote.

The appeal judge allowed the appeal, finding the profit-sharing claim was a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract, not an equity claim, and was therefore provable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision and confirming that the profit-sharing claim is a provable claim that takes priority over the limited partners' equity claims.

The Monitor in the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. and affiliated entities sought court approval for a settlement agreement and an amendment to the Initial Order.

The settlement resolved a dispute over a $5.9 million consulting fee with Mattamy (Downsview) Limited, resulting in a $2.9 million asset for Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. (UTMI).

The amendment increased the authorized intercompany loan limit from $1 million to $4.7 million to reflect actual advances to UTMI.

The court approved both the settlement and the amendment, finding them fair, reasonable, and consistent with the CCAA's purpose, but made the approvals conditional upon obtaining corresponding approval from the Israeli Court, given the intertwined nature of the foreign proceeding.

This endorsement addresses an unopposed motion brought by the Applicants in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The Applicants sought an order extending the stay period until January 31, 2024, approving the Monitor’s 58th Report and its activities, and approving the fees and disbursements of the Monitor, Monitor’s counsel, and Applicants’ counsel.

The court found that the Applicants continued to work in good faith and with due diligence, had sufficient resources for the extension period, and that the requested extension and fee approvals were reasonable.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The appellants, Limited Partners of a debtor in a bankruptcy proposal, appealed an order for directions regarding the process for an appeal of a proof of claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that the motion judge had not made any final orders regarding the appellants' standing in the anticipated claim appeal, but rather had made directions "subject to the discretion of the judge hearing the appeal." The court held that the possibility of influence or an incorrect underlying conclusion on discretionary standing was not a basis for appeal.

The Limited Partners of YG Limited Partnership appealed a motion judge's order denying them standing to oppose a creditor's (CBRE Limited) appeal of a disallowed proof of claim under s. 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, holding that limited partners do not possess a direct economic interest in the claim sufficient for common law standing, nor are they granted standing under s. 135(4) or s. 37 of the BIA.

The court emphasized that the BIA is a complete code designed for expeditious resolution of bankruptcy matters, and equity owners are generally excluded from direct participation in creditor claim appeals.

Mattamy (Downsview) Limited sought to set aside an arbitration award under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction and committed procedural unfairness by refusing to admit relevant evidence.

The court found the arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction as the "New Issue" fell within the broad scope of the arbitration.

However, the court found procedural unfairness and a failure of natural justice due to the arbitrator's refusal to admit the "REALPAC Handbook" evidence, which was relevant to the "New Issue" he himself raised, especially given the respondents did not object and no formal motion was allowed.

The court emphasized that procedural fairness is an independent right, and its denial invalidates the decision regardless of the likely outcome.

This motion arose in a bankruptcy proceeding where the Trustee sought an order compelling a secured claimant to provide information regarding her claim and a direction to keep this information confidential from a foreign representative who had an indirect financial interest in the estate and was involved in collateral litigation against the claimant.

The claimant refused to provide the information without strict confidentiality, while the foreign representative sought to reserve rights to access it later.

The court declined to issue the requested directions, emphasizing that the Trustee should follow the statutory process for claim adjudication and that issues related to collateral litigation should be addressed in those separate proceedings.

The moving party, Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc., sought leave to appeal a distribution order from the Supervising Judge in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The order authorized a distribution to King Towns North Inc. (KTNI) related to the sale of "Bridge Geothermal Assets" and the interpretation of a "Transfer Provision" in a lease.

The core issue was whether the Transfer Provision violated the pari passu or anti-deprivation rules, particularly in light of Chandos Construction Ltd. v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc. The Supervising Judge found the provision valid, as it was triggered by a lease transfer, not insolvency, and did not violate the rules.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no prima facie meritorious issue or error in the Supervising Judge's application of the anti-deprivation rule as clarified in Chandos, and that the appeal would unduly hinder the proceedings.

This motion sought a stay pending leave to appeal an order authorizing the sale of a 51% interest in Downsview Homes Inc. (DHI) within ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The moving party, the Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc., argued the sale process should be postponed until a related arbitration regarding a disputed payment was resolved, fearing a chilling effect on potential bids.

The supervising judge had previously dismissed these concerns as speculative.

The Court of Appeal applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, finding the grounds for appeal weak, no irreparable harm to the moving party, and the balance of convenience favoring the respondents (the Monitor and Mattamy Homes Limited, the debtor-in-possession lender).

Consequently, the motion for a stay was dismissed.

Crystallex International Corporation and Tenor Special Situation I, LP sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order that partially dismissed Crystallex's request to seal certain financial information in the Monitor's Thirty-Third Report.

The motion judge had applied the Sierra Club test and found the evidence for sealing speculative.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious and the case was not of significance to the practice, upholding the motion judge's discretionary order.

The Receiver and Monitor sought court approval for the sale of geothermal assets and an order compelling the assignment of a long-term lease (the "Berm Lease") to the purchaser.

King Towns North Inc. (KTNI), the landlord under the Berm Lease, opposed the assignment order, arguing that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) does not grant receivers statutory authority to compel assignments and that the assignment was inappropriate given the nominal rent and a lease clause allowing unreasonable withholding of consent.

The court found jurisdiction to grant the assignment order under BIA s. 243(1)(c) in conjunction with s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act, or alternatively, through its inherent jurisdiction, emphasizing a purposive approach to Canadian insolvency laws.

The court concluded that the assignment was appropriate, as it was critical to the transaction, the assignee's financial obligations were nominal, and KTNI's allocation entitlements could be addressed at a later date.

The sale transaction and a sealing order for confidential information were also approved.

Crystallex International Corporation brought a motion for a sealing order to keep confidential certain financial information and strategic details contained in the Monitor's 33rd Report, including cash balance, litigation expenses, sanctions impact, and confidential mediation disputes.

The Ad Hoc Committee of senior noteholders and the Trustee opposed the sealing of financial information, arguing for the importance of disclosure in CCAA proceedings.

The court applied the Sierra Club test, which requires demonstrating a real and substantial risk to an important commercial interest, no reasonable alternative to sealing, and the salutary effects outweighing the deleterious effects on the open-court principle.

The court found Crystallex's evidence, consisting of bald and speculative statements, insufficient to meet this high evidentiary burden, and therefore dismissed the motion for a sealing order.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Functionary and Terra Firma brought a motion to late file a claim and to approve a settlement agreement between them regarding the distribution of the debtor's funds.

The court allowed the late filing of the claim but ruled the Functionary's unsworn report inadmissible.

The court dismissed the motion to approve the settlement, finding that a settlement of claims against the debtor requires the consent of the debtor or the Monitor, neither of which had agreed to the settlement.

The Monitor in a CCAA proceeding brought a motion to disallow a $2.3 million secured claim filed by a creditor.

The Monitor argued the secured guarantee given by the insolvent debtor was a transfer at undervalue under s. 96 of the BIA or a fraudulent conveyance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the debtor and creditor were operating at arm's length and that the Monitor failed to prove the debtor granted the guarantee with the intent to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors.

In the context of Target Canada's CCAA proceedings, the Monitor sought advice and directions on whether to accept amended claims filed by Bell Canada and Bell Nexxia.

Bell sought to increase its original claims by approximately $4.1 million due to inadvertent calculation errors discovered after the claims bar date and after the original claims were admitted.

Target Corporation opposed the amendment.

Applying the Blue Range test, the court found that Bell acted in good faith, the errors were inadvertent, and admitting the amended claims would not cause relative prejudice to other creditors.

The court directed the Monitor to accept the amended claims for review, with Bell to bear the reasonable costs incurred by the Monitor and Target Canada due to the error.

The Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc. (UCI) moved to set aside the Monitor's disallowance of UCI's $6 million promissory note claim against Bay LP and sought a declaration confirming the validity of a companion $2 million note.

The notes were issued in connection with management fees and replaced an earlier $8 million note.

The court found that the notes were not independent obligations but were issued for tax purposes, and the underlying management fees had been paid through intercompany accounting entries.

The court rejected the argument that UCI was a holder in due course, noting that the notes were not intended to be binding and the assignees (UCI and Realtyco), controlled by the same individual, had actual notice of the intercompany affairs and payment status.

The motions were dismissed.

The Monitor of Target Canada Co. and its affiliates, undergoing CCAA proceedings, sought advice and directions from the court regarding the treatment of several late-filed claims.

The court applied the four-part test from *Blue Range Resource Corp. Re*, considering inadvertence, good faith, and prejudice to other creditors.

The court found that five claimants (Fruits & Passion, Lou Pharma, Kulwinder Kaur Rai, Capital Brands Inc., and Mohammad Alam) satisfied the test, allowing their claims against Target Canada Co. However, claims against Target Corporation and Target Brands were barred due to the prejudice caused by disturbing the sanctioned plan and releases, which Target Corporation relied upon for its significant contributions.

The court also provided directions on distributions for allowed late claims and a framework for addressing future unknown late claims, emphasizing the finality of the sanctioned plan.

A motion was brought by 40 purchasers of residential units from various Urbancorp entities in CCAA and BIA NOI proceedings.

The purchasers sought the appointment of Dickinson Wright LLP as their representative counsel and an order for their legal fees, capped at $150,000, to be paid and secured by an administrative charge against the four properties.

The properties were vacant land, and the significant deposits received by Urbancorp companies were not held in trust and had been spent.

The motion was supported by Tarion but opposed by the Monitor, the Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc., the Urbancorp entities, and certain other purchasers and a secured lender for one project.

The court granted the appointment of Dickinson Wright as representative counsel, but stipulated an opt-in process for purchasers rather than an opt-out.

The court denied the request for an administrative charge for legal fees, ruling that fees and disbursements could be paid by the estates from the distributions made to those purchasers who chose to be represented by Dickinson Wright.

The applicants, a group of real estate development companies, sought an Initial Order under the CCAA and the continuation of their NOI proceedings under the CCAA.

Concurrently, the foreign representative of the parent company sought recognition of Israeli insolvency proceedings as a foreign main proceeding under Part IV of the CCAA.

The court approved a Co-operation Protocol between the foreign representative and the proposed Monitor, recognized the Israeli proceeding as a foreign main proceeding, and granted the Initial Order.

The court also extended the stay of proceedings to related limited partnerships and approved various administrative and interim financing charges.

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings involving the Nortel corporate group, the Canadian debtor entities moved for approval of an Allocation Protocol governing the distribution of sale proceeds among various affiliated estates and stakeholders.

The court approved the protocol substantially in the form originally proposed, subject to modifications requiring reliance on the June 7, 2011 protocol version and expansion of the list of “core parties” to include additional indenture trustees.

The court directed the Monitor to prepare a revised list of core parties and coordinate a litigation schedule for resolving allocation disputes.

A cross-motion by the Joint Administrators of a UK affiliate seeking to compel arbitration of allocation disputes under the Interim Funding and Settlement Agreement was dismissed.

The appeal period was deferred until the release of full reasons coordinated with reasons of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.