Sanjeev Mitra

The applicants, a group of real estate development entities (Ashcroft Homes Group), sought to extend an initial Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) stay of proceedings to facilitate a restructuring.

Secured creditors, representing 84% of the total secured debt, opposed the extension and instead moved for the appointment of interim receivers.

The court found the applicants' restructuring plan lacked substance, noted a significant loss of confidence in management due to past conduct and outdated property valuations, and determined that the collaborative receivership approach proposed by the majority of secured creditors was more appropriate.

The motion to extend the CCAA stay was dismissed, and the motions for the appointment of receivers were granted.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of the corporate and individual respondents due to undisputed defaults under security documents, with an outstanding debt exceeding $12 million.

Despite multiple adjournments granted by the court to allow the respondents to secure refinancing, no credible evidence of a firm financing commitment materialized, and the respondents failed to cooperate with the court-appointed monitor.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver, citing the respondents' lack of transparency and repeated failures to meet payment obligations or secure alternative financing.

The Royal Bank of Canada initiated an application for receivership against Peace Bridge Duty Free Inc. (PBDF) due to lease defaults, leading to the appointment of a monitor to facilitate a resolution with its landlord, Buffalo & Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority.

After a year without resolution, the Landlord moved to lift the stay on proceedings, arguing PBDF failed to pay "normal rent" as required by the Appointment Order.

The court declined to immediately lift the stay, finding the term "normal rent" in the Appointment Order ambiguous given the prolonged period of reduced payments due to COVID-19 restrictions.

The court ordered mandatory mediation between the Landlord and Tenant by March 31, 2023, to facilitate a business resolution, requiring the Tenant to provide a new proposal with financial information.

Further directions will be provided post-mediation.

The bankrupt applied for a discharge from her first bankruptcy, which the trustee opposed due to issues relating to mortgage financing placed on her home prior to bankruptcy.

The bankrupt filed extensive materials complaining about the trustee's administration of the estate, particularly regarding the resolution of her ex-husband's claims.

The court found that a discharge hearing was not the appropriate forum to address the bankrupt's complaints against the trustee.

Noting the bankrupt's extraordinary rehabilitation efforts, the court granted an immediate absolute discharge.

A lender brought a motion seeking judgment under loan guarantees, possession of mortgaged property, and leave to issue a writ of possession following default under a standstill agreement and related loan documents.

The respondents challenged the procedure, service of demand, jurisdiction of the Commercial List, and compliance with notice requirements under the Mortgages Act.

The court found no material facts in dispute and held that proceeding by application was appropriate under Rule 14.05(3)(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court determined that the guarantees were enforceable, notice requirements had been satisfied, and the applicant was entitled to possession and related remedies.

Judgment was granted for the indebtedness together with possession, a writ of possession, and costs.

An investigative receiver sought court approval of its reports, activities, and fees incurred during an investigation into the financial affairs of a respondent corporation connected to bankrupt companies operating retirement homes.

The court found the receiver’s mandate report complied with the appointment order and approved the report and the activities described in it.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the motion seeking approval of further receiver and counsel fees, arguing proportionality concerns and potential insolvency.

The court granted the adjournment on fairness grounds, allowing the respondent to file objections to the requested fees, while extending the receiver’s mandate.

The court also permitted the respondent to provide previously omitted bank statements to the receiver but held the receiver need not amend its report to account for them.