Summary

Keywords

Commercial law - Commercial law — Ruling on interpretation of order pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act — Proper interpretation of order — Can an initial order in “template form” staying proceedings against an applicant debtor corporation granted under the CCAA be interpreted to automatically stay proceedings against third parties or not depending on the circumstances? — Can an order suspending limitation periods (tolling order) to commence proceedings to challenge or set aside transactions in respect of the applicant debtor corporation granted under the CCAA be interpreted so as to stay an existing action against the applicant debtor corporation and third parties without express wording to that effect? — Can a supervising Justice in proceedings under the CCAA re-interpret prior orders, including the “template form” initial order and a tolling order, so as to have retroactive or retrospective effect, so as to deprive the applicants of an accrued right to apply for dismissal for delay exceeding three years under r. 4.33(2) of the Alberta Rules of Court? — What is the proper standard of review in relation to an order interpreting a prior court order?.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant Roy Wiebe is the sole director of Parkland Aerospace Corp. Parkland Aerospace owned 50% of the shares of Parkland Airport Development Corp. The respondent Weinrich Contracting Ltd. was retained by Parkland Airport to construct a runway. In July 2014, Weinrich Contracting commenced an action against Parkland Airport, Mr. Wiebe, and others alleging negligent and fraudulent misconduct leading up to the contract. In April 2015, the statement of claim was amended to add additional defendants, including Parkland Aerospace. In November 2016, Parkland Airport applied for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36. In the course of those proceedings, orders were granted staying proceedings and tolling certain limitation periods. The initial order granting protection under the CCAA was made on November 29, 2016. The case management judge concluded that the stay in the initial order did operate to stay the Weinrich Contracting litigation from November 29, 2016 to July 14, 2019. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.