Newsletters

Intellectual Property Usage Rights under the CCAA and BIA

By Mitchell Grossell, Insolvency Lawyer On December 13, 2018, Bill C-86, a federal omnibus budget bill also known as the Budget Implementation Act,...

Featuring Mitchell Grossell

Supreme Court to Weigh in Again on Good Faith in Contracts

By Scott McGrath, Litigation Lawyer The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) acknowledged that good faith contractual performance is a gener...

Featuring Scott McGrath

Did Bhasin “honestly” change Canadian contract law?

In November 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released their decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew, setting out a duty of honest performance in contract law.

Featuring James Hardy

Roll-up DIPs: The other “shoe” drops

On April 20, 2017, in Payless Holdings Inc. LLC, Re,DIP Facility”) granted in Payless’ (as defined below) proceedings pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Chapter 11 Proceedings”). The Court held that it was not reasonable ...

Featuring Rachel Bengino

Releases Mean What They Say and “All Claims” Means All Claims

In its recent decision of Biancaniello v. DMCT LLP, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that a release for “any and all claims” arising from the provision of services included a claim unforeseen by either party. The use of “boilerplate” language in the release did not negate its effect on existing claims unknown at the time the release was executed.

Featuring Erin Pleet

Q&A with Frank Newbould, Q.C.

With Frank Newbould Q.C. joining TGF as Counsel, we posed five questions to him that we thought might be of interest to readers of our Top Line New...

Featuring Frank J.C. Newbould

Ontario Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada Shut Down Two Separate Attempts to Appeal Nortel Decisions

On May 3, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision (the “Leave Decision”) denying parties leave to appeal from Justice Newbould’s decision which held that global proceeds of sale in the amount of US$7.3 billion (the “Lockbox Funds”) should be distributed to the worldwide Nortel debtor estates on a pro rata basis (the “Allocation Decision”).

New Location Of Debtor Rules Under Ontario Personal Property Security Act

Ontario has fixed December 31, 2015 as the date on which the rules that determine the “location of the debtor” under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (“OPPSA”) will change.

Featuring Grant B. Moffat

Cheaper, Faster, Better? An Alternative Process to a Sheriff’s Sale

The Ontario Superior Court recently recognized a novel way for judgment creditors to move for a sale of their judgment debtors’ property, outside of the sheriff’s sale process set out in the Execution Act. In Canaccede International Acquisitions Ltd. v Abdullah, Justice Broad allowed the judgment creditor to move under the rules of court for a “reference” which, in this instance, resulted in a judicially-supervised sale of the property.

Featuring Erin Pleet

Post-Filing Interest No More: The Court of Appeal’s recent decision from Nortel Networks Corporation

On October 13, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Re Nortel Networks Corporation, regarding the application of the common law “interest stops rule” in insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).

Featuring Rebecca Kennedy

Ground-breaking Result for TGF Clients in Nortel Allocation Saga

On May 12, 2015, Justice Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice[i] and Judge Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware[ii] simultaneously issued rulings to allocate the approximately US$7.3 billion proceeds of sale of the Nortel group’s assets amongst insolvent estates administering the now defunct company in each of Canada, the United States (“US”) and Europe.

Court Endorses Creative Cost-Sharing Plan for Unfunded Dissenting Shareholders

Justice Leitch of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released a decision in Rooney v. Arcelormittal S.A. that will have a major impact on a group of dissenting shareholders, and could have far-reaching implications for securities litigation in general where there is a companion class action.

Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms that Indemnity Claims of Underwriters and Auditors are Equity Claims

On November 23, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Re Sino-Forest Corporation.

Featuring James H. Grout

Keepin’ It Class-y: The Ontario Superior Court of Justice takes extraordinary measures to protect the class action process

In 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc. (“1250”), Justice Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice took the extraordinary step of invalidating the majority of opt-out notices obtained from potential class members in a certified class proceeding due to the irreparable damage caused to the process by the aggressive conduct of a third party.

Re Indalex: “Giving, And Taking Away”

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") released its long-awaited decision in Re Indalex Limited.

Featuring D.J. Miller

Just the facts, please: an examination of Downey v. Ecore International Inc.

Downey v. Ecore International Inc., is an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that addresses the court’s approach to interpreting inconsistent interrelated agreements and identifying the parties to those agreements.

Cost Awards: When is a lawyer personally liable?

In June of this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal released an important decision clarifying the circumstances in which a court will award costs personally against a lawyer.

A Receiver’s Obligation to Disclose: Navigating Through the Intersection of Insolvency and Criminal Law

In his recent decision in SA Capital Growth Corp. v. Brooks, Justice Pattillo of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) addressed the question of whether a court-appointed receiver should be required to disclose documents and information obtained by it as a result of a court-ordered investigation to one of the subjects of the investigation, where that party is facing allegations by the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”). 

Re Rowan: Penalties without Charter Protection

In the March 29, 2012 decision Re Rowan, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided, among other issues, that individuals involved in proceedings at the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) who are subject to monetary penalties imposed under the Ontario Securities Act (the “Act”), are not afforded the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

CRO: “Chief Restructuring Officer” or "Cost-effective Restructuring Option"

The appointment of a chief restructuring officer (“CRO”) is on the rise in Canada in the context of both court supervised insolvency proceedings and informal restructurings.

Featuring Grant B. Moffat

A Partial “Roll up” DIP is Recognized in a Foreign Main Proceeding

In a recent decision, Re Hartford Computer Hardware Inc., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) granted a recognition order pursuant to section 49 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) which, among other things, approved a Final DIP Facility containing a partial “roll up” provision.

Featuring John T. Porter

Sealing The Deal: SCC Denies Black Leave to Appeal Hollinger’s Sealing Order

On May 3, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Conrad Black (“Black”) leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario upholding the decision of the Honourable Justice Campbell to seal certain privileged and confidential information contained in settlement agreements between Hollinger Inc. (“Hollinger”) and certain settling parties, that are subject to court approval.

A Decent Proposal: Hot Button Issues under Part III of the BIA

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List), Re Kitchener Frame Limited, considered three hot-button issues in a proposal proceeding under Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”).

The Tort of Snooping: Intrusion upon Seclusion

In January, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the existence of a new common law right of action for breach of privacy in Jones v. Tsige. This potentially wide-ranging new tort is called “intrusion upon seclusion”.

Featuring John L. Finnigan