Tamie Dolny

In a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act proceeding, the applicant Hudson's Bay Company ULC and related entities sought approval of an Art Collection Auction Process Order to authorize the auction of artwork and artifacts held by the company.

The court approved the proposed auction procedures, which included both live and online auction components.

The court noted that certain items were excluded from the auction, including the Royal Charter, artifacts previously donated to the Manitoba Museum, the company's reference collection donated to the Archives of Manitoba, and war memorials.

Additionally, 24 artifacts believed to be of Indigenous origin or representative of Indigenous culture were excluded from the auction and would be donated to appropriate custodians in consultation with Indigenous communities.

The court found that the proposed procedures satisfied the applicable legal tests and represented the most appropriate process for disposing of the art collection while balancing the interests of creditors with cultural and historical considerations.

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

The SMA 2 Unitholders sought a declaration that substantive consolidation does not apply to Bridging SMA 2 LP and approval for a second interim distribution.

The Receiver and Unitholder Representative Counsel opposed, arguing the motion was premature as various distribution issues, including the full economic impact of consolidation, remained unresolved.

The court dismissed the motion, deferring to the Receiver's position that a determination on substantive consolidation and further distributions was premature given the incomplete factual record and outstanding distribution issues.

The court-appointed Representative Counsel for the Bridging Unitholders brought a motion for a "Unitholder Advisor Claims Tolling Order" to suspend limitation periods for claims that approximately 26,000 unitholders might have against their investment professionals or financial institutions.

The motion sought to protect unitholders who might be unaware of the need to pursue individual claims or were awaiting clarity on recoveries from the Bridging funds.

The court granted the motion, affirming its statutory and inherent jurisdiction to issue such an order in complex receivership proceedings to prevent significant prejudice to unitholders and manage potential litigation.

The applicants, comprising a wholesale fuel supplier servicing First Nations communities, sought initial protection under the CCAA due to a looming liquidity crisis precipitated by alleged executive misconduct and missing financial records.

The court granted the initial order, including a stay of proceedings extending to regulatory authorities to prevent the revocation of essential fuel licenses.

The court also appointed KPMG as Monitor with enhanced investigatory powers, approved administration and D&O charges, authorized payment of critical pre-filing expenses, and granted a sealing order over a confidential affidavit to respect comity with a foreign court order.

CIM Bayview filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the BIA and sought to disclaim an Amended Option Agreement that granted Bryton Creek the right to purchase a development property.

CIM Bayview argued the option could be disclaimed, vested out, or was void for imposing a criminal rate of interest or violating the Interest Act.

The court dismissed CIM Bayview's motion, finding the option created an immediate interest in land that could not be disclaimed or vested out.

The court also found the option did not constitute a criminal rate of interest or a penalty.

The court lifted the stay of proceedings to allow Bryton Creek to exercise its option.