23 total
Motion for disclosure granted; respondent ordered to produce records of animal removal and subsequent care.
The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to remove over 200 dogs from their properties.
The appellants brought a motion for further disclosure, including documentation of the removal, the subsequent care of the dogs, and the Informations to Obtain (ITOs) used for the search warrants.
The respondent refused, arguing the information was irrelevant.
The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested disclosure was relevant to whether the removal was lawful and necessary for a full understanding of the issues.
Court granted initial CCAA protection, DIP financing, and regulatory stays following a sudden liquidity crisis.
Just Energy Group Inc. and its affiliates sought an initial order for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a severe liquidity crisis.
This crisis stemmed from unprecedented and controversial price increases imposed by Texas regulators (ERCOT and PUCT) following an extreme winter storm.
The court granted a 10-day stay of proceedings, approved a $125 million debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, stayed regulatory actions in Canada and the U.S., authorized charges for essential suppliers, and stayed set-off rights.
The court also approved administrative and directors and officers charges.
However, the request for third-quarter bonus payments was denied for the initial order, to be reconsidered at a later hearing.
The court held that settlement payments for a disclaimed commercial lease were exclusive of HST based on commercial practice and the parties' conduct.
The applicant landlord sought a declaration that harmonized sales tax (HST) must be added to settlement payments made by the respondent under a settlement agreement.
The agreement, negotiated during Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, quantified the landlord's claim after the tenant disclaimed a lease.
The court found the settlement agreement ambiguous regarding the obligation to pay HST.
Applying principles of contractual interpretation, including objective factual matrix, commercial common practice in real estate, and the parties' post-execution conduct, the court determined that the settlement payments were exclusive of HST, and the respondent was required to pay HST in addition.