Court File and Parties
Court File No.: BK-23-02986886-0031 Date: 20241004 Ontario - Superior Court of Justice – Commercial List
In the Matter of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended And in the Matter of the Proposal of Metroland Media Group Ltd. of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario
Re: Metroland Media Group Ltd.
Before: Peter J. Osborne J.
Counsel: Andrew Hatnay and Abir Shamim, Representative Counsel for Employees and Retirees Alexandra Teodorescu, Counsel for Grant Thornton Limited, Proposal Trustee
Heard: October 4, 2024
Endorsement
[1]
Overview
Representative Counsel to Non-Union Employees and Retirees seeks an order approving the additional costs of the Non-Union Employees in the all-inclusive amount of $200,000, comprised of legal fees, costs of the Financial Advisor and taxes and disbursements.
2The relief is not opposed by any party, including the Proposal Trustee. It is supported by the Non-Union Employees, who are the most affected stakeholders.
3The moving party relies on the Affidavit of John Willems sworn September 17, 2024 and the exhibits thereto. Defined terms in this Endorsement have the meaning given to them in the motion materials unless otherwise stated.
[4]
Analysis
The activities undertaken by Representative Counsel are fully set out in the motion materials. They are extensive.
5The amounts for which approval is sought today are to be paid out of upcoming distributions released by the Proposal Trustee to the Non-Union Employees and Retirees, and not from Proposal funds payable to all creditors. The Employee Committee has received the account outlining the costs of Representative Counsel in their Financial Advisor and supports the request. Since it is those parties who are paying the fees, there is no prejudice to other creditors.
6This Court has broad discretion under section 197(1) of the BIA to order costs. This Court has previously approved fee requests of court-appointed Representative Counsel to former employees to be paid from upcoming distributions to employees. See: Nortel Networks Corp., Re, 2020 CarswellOnt 19887 ONSC at para. 6; and Stelco Inc. Re, Endorsement dated March 29, 2023 (unreported).
7Costs can be evaluated on the overriding principle of reasonableness: Nortel Networks Corp., Re, 2017 ONSC 673 at para. 17; and Target Canada Co. (Re), 2017 ONSC 7103 at para. 39. The following non-exhaustive list of factors can be taken into account. While held to be applicable to the approval of the fees of a Court-appointed Monitor, the same factors, inform the analysis with respect to Court-appointed Representative Counsel:
a. the nature, extent and value of the assets being handled; b. the complications and difficulties encountered; c. the degree of assistance provided by the Company, its officers or its employees; d. the time spent; e. the knowledge, experience and skill of the court-appointed officer; f. the diligence and thoroughness displayed; g. the responsibilities assumed; h. the results achieved; and i. the cost of comparable services one performed in a prudent and economical manner.
See Nortel Networks Corp., Re, 2017 ONSC 673 at para. 17; Confectionately Yours inc. (Re), (2002), 36 CBR (4th) 200 (ONCA) at paras. 45, 51.
8I have considered all of these factors as against the evidence set out in Mr. Willems’ affidavit and I am satisfied that they have been met here.
[9]
Disposition
The motion is granted. Order to go in the form signed by me today.
Osborne J.