Shawn Irving

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants sought a Funding Order to compel Securitization Parties and other secured lenders to fund a $40 million wind-down of the remaining entities.

The court dismissed the motion for the Funding Order, finding that section 11.01(b) of the CCAA expressly prohibits orders requiring the further advance of money or credit.

Consequently, the court also declined to approve a Key Employee Retention Plan, as it was dependent on the unavailable funding.

The court did, however, grant a temporary sealing order for the KERP details and extended the stay of proceedings to November 29, 2024.

The Liquidator of Silicon Valley Bank Canada sought court approval of an asset purchase agreement with National Bank of Canada, as well as a sealing order over the unredacted agreement and a confidential comparative analysis.

The court applied the Soundair principles and found that the Liquidator made substantial efforts to canvass the market, the transaction was in the best interests of stakeholders, and the process was fair and efficacious.

The court also granted the sealing order, applying the Sherman Estate test, to protect the maximization of recovery in the event the transaction did not close.

The plaintiff consulting firm brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant pharmaceutical company for unpaid invoices totaling $506,198.70 related to expert litigation services provided in a UK proceeding.

The defendant argued the fees exceeded litigation budgets and were unreasonable, and that the plaintiff was estopped from relying on a five-day notice of objection provision in the retainer agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the budgets were not part of the contract, no timely written objections were made, and there was no evidence of promissory estoppel.

The plaintiff was awarded the full amount claimed, with pre-judgment interest capped at 5% per year under the Interest Act.

Porter Airlines and Nieuport Aviation disputed the calculation of terminal fees at Billy Bishop Airport under a Licence Agreement.

Porter argued it could pay fees based on a variable daily slot allocation and claimed force majeure due to the COVID-19 pandemic to excuse non-payment.

Nieuport argued fees were based on a fixed, recurring number of daily slots and counterclaimed for unpaid fees.

The court held that the Licence Agreement required payment based on a fixed number of recurring daily slots.

The court also found that the COVID-19 pandemic did not trigger the force majeure clause to excuse Porter's payment obligations.

Porter was ordered to pay over $131 million in damages for unpaid terminal fees, while Nieuport's recourse under a guarantee was limited to specified aircraft.

In a CCAA proceeding, the court considered supplementary written submissions regarding the appropriateness of differential consideration offered to unsecured creditors in the proposed Plan.

The court accepted the applicants' submission that the fairness of the differential consideration, which involves providing shares to Term Loan Lenders and cash to General Unsecured Creditors, should be determined at the Sanction Hearing rather than at the Meetings Order stage, given the low threshold for a Meetings Order and the presence of conflicting expert reports.

The Applicants sought an Authorization Order and Meetings Order under the CCAA.

The primary issues in dispute concerned the voting rights and classification of Litigation Claimants, which included uncertified U.S. class actions, a certified Ontario class action, and Texas mass tort claims.

The court held that the Litigation Claimants are creditors entitled to vote, but restricted them to one vote per action to prevent them from overriding other stakeholders on numerosity grounds.

The court also ordered summary proceedings to value their claims rather than accepting the Applicants' proposal to value them at $1.

Finally, the court declined to place the Term Loan Lenders in a separate class from other unsecured creditors, finding sufficient commonality of legal interests.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants brought a motion to approve a Support Agreement, a Backstop Commitment Letter, and a Meetings Order.

The court approved the uncontested portions of the agreements and the Meetings Order.

The court also determined that there would be two classes of creditors for voting on the Plan: a Secured Creditor Class and an Unsecured Creditor Class, with the latter including Term Loan Lenders and various class action plaintiffs.

The court ordered expedited summary proceedings to value the class action claims and requested supplementary submissions on the differential consideration offered to unsecured creditors.

In the context of a complex CCAA restructuring, the applicants sought approval for several motions, including a second Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP), an extension of the stay of proceedings, an extension of the DIP financing facility, and two corporate transactions involving the wind-up of subsidiaries.

US class action plaintiffs opposed the KERP and DIP extension, arguing they would deplete the estate.

The court approved all requests, finding the KERP and DIP extension necessary to maximize creditor recovery and advance a restructuring plan.

The court also used its broad jurisdiction under s. 11 of the CCAA to approve a corporate dissolution that technically violated the solvency requirements of the CBCA, as the transaction benefited the estate and did not prejudice stakeholders.

The applicants sought a declaration that they had fully repaid a commercial loan to the respondent and an order preventing the respondent from exercising its right to convert the debt into shares.

The applicants had attempted to repay the loan via a wire transfer to the personal account of the respondent's principal, as the respondent had refused to provide wire instructions and insisted on strict compliance with the loan agreement.

The court found that the applicants failed to repay the loan in accordance with the strict terms of the agreement.

Consequently, the applicants' application was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-application to enforce its conversion rights was granted.

In a certified class proceeding brought by pharmacy franchisees against a franchisor, the plaintiffs moved to finalize a discovery plan for the upcoming common issues trial.

The dispute concerned whether the defendant franchisor should produce source documents underlying accounting reports regarding professional allowances received from drug manufacturers.

The court emphasized the proportionality principle in discovery, noting that the plaintiffs had not yet reviewed the reports already agreed to be produced and that further requests might therefore be speculative or unnecessary.

The court categorized the requested document productions as improper, premature, or appropriately satisfied through representative sampling.

The discovery plan was finalized accordingly, requiring samples for certain categories while denying or deferring others.