Key Issues:

1. Application for Stay of Receivership: Mayfield sought to stay the effects of a Consent Receivership Order until November 30, 2024, or pending its Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) application.
2. ATB Financial’s Opposition: ATB argued against the stay, emphasizing prior agreements and forbearance.

Background:

• Financial Distress: Mayfield had been in financial distress since 2021, owing ATB over $38 million.
• Forbearance Agreements: Multiple forbearance agreements were signed, all of which Mayfield defaulted on.
• Receivership Application: ATB sought to appoint a receiver after further defaults; Mayfield consented to a receivership order in September 2024, which was activated following additional defaults.

Court's Analysis:

• Effect of the Consent Receivership Order: The order allowed ATB to appoint a receiver if Mayfield defaulted further, which happened.
• Estoppel Argument: The court rejected ATB’s claim that Mayfield was estopped from seeking a stay, but found no grounds to grant the stay.
• Tripartite Test for Stay:
  1. Serious Issue: The court found a serious issue regarding the CCAA proceedings but deemed this insufficient for a stay.
  2. Irreparable Harm: Mayfield failed to prove that irreparable harm would result from not granting the stay.
  3. Balance of Convenience: The balance favored ATB, given Mayfield's repeated defaults and the importance of honoring the Consent Receivership Order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed Mayfield's application for a stay, reinforcing the terms of the consent receivership and the importance of upholding agreements in insolvency proceedings.

No monetary award specified.