SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

(COMMERCIAL LIST)

Court File No.: CV-12-9655-00CL
Date: 20130129

RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES’ CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF COMPROMISE OR ARRANGEMENT OF VANGUARD SHIPPING (GREAT LAKES) LTD. AND VANSHIP LTD.

BEFORE: MORAWETZ, J.

COUNSEL:

Kyla Mahar, for the Monitor

Greg Azeff and A. Iqbal, for the Purchasers

Patrick Welsh, for Eastern Canada Response Corporation

Bradley Phillips, for St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation

Marc Isaacs, for Laurentian Pilotage Authority

Harvey Chariton, for Roynat Inc.

HEARD & RELEASED: JANUARY 29, 2013

ENDORSEMENT

[1] With the exception of two issues, the motion was not opposed. The outstanding issues arise out of the Claims Process Order and the Report of the Referee.

[2] It appears that the Claims Process Order did not address the issue of costs arising out of the proceedings before the Referee. The Referee is apparently uncertain as to whether he has the authority to address the issue of costs.

[3] In the circumstances of this case the Referee considered and adjudicated on a number of Maritime claims. The Referee produced a comprehensive report. The Referee is in the best position to determine whether costs should be awarded. It is arguable that the Referee may have had the authority to deal with the issue. However, for greater certainty, the Referee is requested to address the issue in the manner set forward in the draft Order. This direction is made on the basis that the Referee is in the best position to make an informed decision.

[4] I do not see the basis to restrict cost submissions to those of Laurentian and St. Lawrence. All claimants should be on an equal footing.

[5] With respect to second issue, namely the request of St. Lawrence to have the Referee reconsider his decision and to receive further evidence and to possibly appeal the decision of the Referee, no formal motion has been served.

[6] If the matter is appealed, it seems to me that the appeal should be brought to this Court, as the supervising CCAA court. However, it is premature to consider such an appeal in the absence of a formal motion.

[7] If it is a request for reconsideration, it seems to me that the matter should be directed back to the Referee, who can make the determination as to whether the additional evidence is to be considered and whether the Referee should reconsider his decision.

[8] The Monitor is directed to communicate with the Referee to address scheduling issues on an expedited basis.

[9] The Report of the Referee is confirmed. This does not, however, preclude the Referee from filing a Supplementary Report, if he so chooses.

[10] The Eighth Report of the Monitor is approved together with the activities described therein.

[11] The Monitor is discharged on terms set forth in the draft Order subject to the condition that the Discharge Certificate is not be filed for at least 30 days. The draft Order is to be modified to affect the foregoing.

MORAWETZ J.

Date: January 29, 2013