Roger Jaipargas

The applicant, Hornblower Group, Inc., sought an interim stay of proceedings in Canada under Part IV of the CCAA and section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The stay was requested in connection with Chapter 11 proceedings commenced by the applicant and its affiliates in the United States.

The motion was unopposed.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant the stay, noting it was consistent with principles of comity and cooperation, and granted the interim stay to preserve the value of the Canadian business during the restructuring.

The applicants, comprising a wholesale fuel supplier servicing First Nations communities, sought initial protection under the CCAA due to a looming liquidity crisis precipitated by alleged executive misconduct and missing financial records.

The court granted the initial order, including a stay of proceedings extending to regulatory authorities to prevent the revocation of essential fuel licenses.

The court also appointed KPMG as Monitor with enhanced investigatory powers, approved administration and D&O charges, authorized payment of critical pre-filing expenses, and granted a sealing order over a confidential affidavit to respect comity with a foreign court order.

The Receiver sought approval of its activities, fees, and a determination of priority over three leased trucks.

The dispute was between the senior lender, RBC, which held a perfected general security agreement, and Paccar, which leased the trucks to the debtor but failed to perfect its security interest.

Paccar argued that as a 'true' lessor, it retained ownership and was exempt from the enforcement provisions of the Personal Property Security Act.

The court held that the 2007 amendments to the PPSA brought true leases of more than one year into the registration system.

Because Paccar failed to perfect its interest, it was subordinate to RBC's perfected security interest.

The court ordered Paccar to return the truck in its possession to the Receiver.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce personal guarantees executed by the respondents, a husband and wife who were directors of the debtor corporation.

The husband did not oppose the motion.

The wife argued she was released from her guarantee due to an undisclosed material change in the principal amount of the indebtedness, lack of independent legal advice, and that the applicant had released her through its conduct during restructuring negotiations.

The court found that the guarantee explicitly allowed for changes in the amount of obligations, the wife was a sophisticated business owner who did not require independent legal advice, and the applicant had not provided an express written waiver as required by the guarantee.

The motion was granted and both respondents were found liable.

The court-appointed Receiver of Chieftain Metals brought a motion for discharge.

The secured creditor, West Face, supported the discharge but sought a provision allowing it to move for the re-appointment of a receiver at any time in the future to facilitate a potential sale of the mining project.

The Province of British Columbia and the Taku River Tlingit First Nation opposed an open-ended right, citing environmental remediation concerns and uncertainty.

The court granted the discharge but limited the secured creditor's right to seek re-appointment to a two-year period, balancing the commercial interests with the need for certainty for the Province and First Nation.

A judgment creditor brought a motion under s. 50.4(11) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to terminate the automatic 30‑day stay following the debtor’s notice of intention to make a proposal.

The debtor sought an extension of the stay under s. 50.4(9).

The court found the debtor failed to establish good faith, due diligence, or a likelihood of presenting a viable proposal, providing only vague assertions of possible negotiations while having no active business, revenue, or meaningful assets.

Given the absence of evidence of any realistic restructuring plan and the veto power of the principal creditor, the statutory requirements for an extension were not met.

The court dismissed the debtor’s motion for an extension and granted the creditor’s motion to terminate the stay.

Companies applied for initial protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act in respect of insolvency arising from liquidity issues and substantial unsecured investor debt.

Evidence showed significant unpaid promissory notes and bonds, loan losses, and transfers of company funds to a related management entity.

The court applied the insolvency tests drawn from the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and concluded the companies were debtor companies under the CCAA.

A stay of proceedings was granted to permit restructuring or realization of the lending portfolio.

The court also approved an administration charge and a directors’ and officers’ charge to support the restructuring process.

In a liquidating CCAA proceeding, the court considered whether a deemed trust under the Pension Benefits Act arose in respect of pension plan wind-up deficiencies, giving priority over secured creditors.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Indalex, the court held that no deemed trust arose because the pension plans were not wound up prior to the CCAA Initial Order.

The court granted the second lien lenders' motion to lift the stay of proceedings to allow a bankruptcy petition to proceed, concluding that imposing a provincial deemed trust priority in the middle of an insolvency proceeding would undermine the predictability and flexibility of the CCAA regime.

The applicants, a group of companies owned by Dondeb Inc., sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to enable an orderly liquidation of their assets.

The application was opposed by approximately 75% of the secured creditors, who argued for individual receiverships due to a lack of confidence in the applicants' principal and the burden of CCAA administrative costs.

The court dismissed the CCAA application, finding it unlikely that a successful plan could be developed and approved by the creditors.

Instead, the court issued a Global Receivership Order, which was supported by the opposing creditors, to achieve an orderly liquidation at a lower cost.