In the context of CCAA proceedings, the Monitor sought directions on the interpretation of a litigation funding agreement and the approved Plan of Arrangement regarding the distribution of funds released from security for costs.
The successful defendants in related litigation argued the funds should be paid to them to satisfy outstanding costs awards.
The court rejected this interpretation, finding the plain wording of the agreements required the funds to be treated as Subsequent Cash on Hand for the benefit of Secured Noteholders.
The court also declined to approve the Monitor's historical activities, noting the expiry of limitation periods rendered such approval unnecessary, but granted the Monitor's discharge.
