Virginie Gauthier

The applicant brought a consent motion within its CCAA proceedings for approval of Sale Procedures and an extension of the Stay Period.

The court found the applicant acted in good faith and with due diligence, and granted the motion, extending the Stay Period to December 22, 2021, and setting a bid deadline of December 31, 2021.

The applicant, McEwan Enterprises Inc., sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order at a comeback hearing in its CCAA proceedings to extend the stay period and increase the administration and directors' charges.

A creditor opposed the motion, arguing the applicant should not be allowed to continue without a court-approved marketing and sale process and raising concerns about a proposed transaction.

The court granted the requested relief to allow the applicant to continue operations, finding the creditor's concerns raised arguable issues that were more properly addressed at an upcoming motion to approve the proposed transaction.

McEwan Enterprises Inc. (MEI), a restaurant and catering business, applied for an Initial Order under the CCAA due to financial challenges exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found MEI to be a 'debtor company' under the CCAA and granted the Initial Order, including a stay of proceedings, authorization to pay certain pre-filing obligations, and the approval of Administration and Directors' Charges.

The court also extended the stay of proceedings to non-filing parties, including the founder Mark McEwan, to prevent disruption to the restructuring efforts.

However, the court declined MEI's request to dispense with the standard CCAA creditor notice provisions, citing the open court presumption.

The Applicants, part of the Lydian Group which owns a development-stage gold mine in Armenia, sought an order sanctioning their Plan of Arrangement under the CCAA.

The Plan, supported by the Monitor and the requisite majority of secured creditors, provides for the privatization of the Lydian Group and the release of existing indebtedness to Senior Lenders.

The court found the Plan to be fair and reasonable, noting that while equity claimants would receive no compensation, this reflected the economic reality of the insolvency.

The court also approved third-party releases, an increase to the DIP charge, an extension of the stay period, a sealing order for commercially sensitive information, and the Monitor's activities and fees.

The Superior Court of Justice considered a motion by BCIMC and Otera Capital to approve a Sale and Investor Solicitation Process (SISP) for three condominium projects (Yorkville, Clover, Halo) under receivership.

The court approved the SISP for the Yorkville project.

For the Clover project, the court declined to approve the SISP, affirming the debtor's right of redemption after Concord Land Developments acquired the debtor's shares and offered to pay out all BCIMC debt and receivership costs.

For the Halo project, the SISP was approved, but without a stalking horse bid and without restrictions on communication between bidders and stakeholders, as the debtor was not yet able to pay out the debt.

This proceeding involved competing applications for the appointment of a receiver and manager under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, and an application for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The applicants, secured creditors, sought receivership over three residential condominium projects (The Clover, Halo, and 33 Yorkville) due to significant financial irregularities, lack of transparency, and loss of confidence in the debtors' management.

The debtors opposed receivership and sought CCAA protection, proposing a share sale to Concord Group Developments and a plan to disclaim existing purchase agreements.

The court dismissed the CCAA application and granted the receivership application, finding that receivership was the preferable route.

The court emphasized the secured creditors' blocking position, the absence of a concrete CCAA plan, and the debtors' deliberate financial misconduct, which outweighed any potential benefits of a CCAA proceeding.

Oxford Properties Group brought a motion seeking the appointment of a specific arbitrator to determine the current value of the Newmarket Property under an option agreement.

Sears Canada Inc. and its Monitor brought a cross-motion requesting the appointment of a different arbitrator, who was already acting as a Claims Officer in the CCAA proceedings, to determine both the property's value and Oxford's related disputed claims.

The court found the issues to be inextricably linked and that separate proceedings would lead to additional cost and delay.

The court granted the cross-motion, appointing the arbitrator proposed by Sears and the Monitor to resolve all outstanding issues related to the property in a single, consolidated proceeding, thereby dismissing Oxford's motion.

The applicants sought an order sanctioning their Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and extending the stay period.

The Plan aimed to restructure the Pacific Group's indebtedness by approximately US $5.1 billion and maintain it as a going concern.

A Shareholder Consortium proposed an alternative recapitalization and refinancing proposal and requested an adjournment, which was opposed by the applicants and other stakeholders.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the alternative proposal a "last minute effort to de-rail" the restructuring.

The court sanctioned the Plan, finding strict compliance with CCAA requirements, good faith, and that the Plan was fair and reasonable, representing the best alternative available.

The court also approved third-party releases and granted a stay of proceedings for non-applicant parties, as well as extending the stay period.

The applicants, a wireless telecommunications group operating under the Mobilicity brand, sought protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act due to significant debt obligations and an imminent liquidity crisis.

The court considered approval of an Initial Order including debtor‑in‑possession financing, administration charges, continuation of a chief restructuring officer, and a stay of proceedings affecting related oppression litigation.

Applying the statutory factors in s. 11.2 of the CCAA, the court held that the proposed DIP financing and related charges were reasonable and necessary to maintain stability and preserve the possibility of a going‑concern restructuring or sale.

The court rejected objections from a major secured creditor and concluded that the financing structure would not materially prejudice creditors because it ranked subordinate to existing first‑lien security.

The Initial Order was therefore granted.

The applicants, comprising iMarketing Solutions Group Inc. and its subsidiaries, applied for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to severe liquidity challenges.

The court granted an Initial Order, including a stay of proceedings, finding that the applicants' businesses could not survive without immediate protection.

The court also approved debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing of $1.0 million, an Administration Charge of $300,000, a Directors' Charge of $1.3 million, the appointment of a Chief Restructuring Officer, and authorization to pay critical suppliers to ensure the continuation of operations during the restructuring process.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought court approval of a liquidation agreement to close and liquidate inventory at 62 underperforming retail store locations.

The liquidation process involved a competitive solicitation of liquidators, review of bids, and negotiation of an agency agreement providing a minimum guaranteed recovery and a distribution waterfall administered through a monitor-controlled trust account.

Secured creditors supported the proposed transaction and the monitor concluded the solicitation process was fair and produced the most favourable economic outcome.

Applying s. 36 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the court held that the disposition process was reasonable and that the consideration offered by the selected liquidator was superior to competing bids.

The court approved the liquidation agreement and related relief.