Westpoint Investment Trust v Westpoint Capital Corporation
Westpoint Investment Trust by its Trustee Munir Virani
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Marnie Kiel
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Westpoint Capital Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Westpoint Capital Management Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Westpoint Capital Services Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Westpoint Syndicated Mortgage Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Canadian Property Direct Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Westpoint Master Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
River's Crossing Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
1897968 Alberta Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
1780384 Alberta Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
1897837 Alberta Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Village At Paldi. Ent. Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
BDO Canada Limited
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
Lawyer(s)

Terrence M. Warner

Robert (Allan) Roberts
Law Firm / Organization
Ogilvie LLP
Lawyer(s)

Kent A. Rowan, KC

Sikin Samanani
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Lawyer(s)

Keely Cameron

Salim Samanani
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Lawyer(s)

Keely Cameron

Karen Cheema
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Lawyer(s)

Keely Cameron

Raj Cheema
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Lawyer(s)

Keely Cameron

Edna Tam
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Lawyer(s)

Keely Cameron

Wei Tam
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Lawyer(s)

Keely Cameron

Background: Westpoint Investment Trust (WIT), a mutual fund trust, invested in mortgage and real estate assets. BDO Canada Limited was appointed as the Judicial Trustee in 2019.

Issue: The Judicial Trustee proposed a distribution of Trust funds, opposed by various noteholders, including Roberts and other Contesting Noteholders.

Arguments:

  • Roberts (Redeeming Shareholder):
    • Claimed his Redemption Note should be prioritized as he sought redemption before the trust’s reorganization.
    • Alternatively, supported the proposed distribution if under the Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust (A&R Declaration).
    • Argued that other claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act.
  • Contesting Noteholders:
    • Argued the distribution violated the pari passu principle (equal treatment of creditors in insolvency).
    • Claimed the Trust was insolvent and in liquidation, requiring pro rata distribution.

Decision:

  • The court found Roberts' Redemption Note subject to the A&R Declaration and dismissed the Limitations Act defense.
  • Recognized that the Trust was in liquidation and ruled that all Trust Notes must rank pari passu, requiring equal treatment among all Trust Noteholders regardless of issue dates.
  • No amount specified for costs/award.

Conclusion: The Judicial Trustee must distribute funds equally among all Trust Noteholders as per the A&R Declaration.

Court of King's Bench of Alberta
1903 04121
Civil litigation
Other