Key Facts
- In 2018, AutoCanada filed a claim alleging fraudulent acquisition and forged documents related to 113 vehicles.
- A Receivership Order appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as receiver with investigative authority over specific assets.
- PwC conducted extensive investigations, issuing multiple reports. Their Sixth Report (March 2023) included legal and factual conclusions.
Receiver’s Application
The Receiver requested:
- Court endorsement of the conclusions in the Sixth Report as binding.
- Determination of certain trial issues regarding vehicle claims.
- A Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) among interested parties.
Plaintiff’s Opposition
AutoCanada objected, arguing:
- Lack of procedural fairness and alleged breach of natural justice.
- Alleged appearance of bias, as PwC also served as Receiver in a related case (Crossline Receivership).
- Opposition to binding acceptance of the Receiver’s legal opinion on ostensible authority without a full trial.
Court’s Findings
- Natural Justice: AutoCanada had ample opportunity to engage in proceedings and access necessary documents, so no breach occurred.
- Bias: AutoCanada’s delay in raising bias and prior support of PwC’s dual role weakened this claim.
- Receiver’s Mandate: The Receiver’s investigative authority and factual conclusions were appropriate under court orders.
Decision
- The Court granted PwC’s application with minor modifications (e.g., extending JDR deadlines).
- PwC’s mandate to provide binding factual findings was upheld, subject to court discretion on unresolved issues.
- No monetary award specified.
This decision reinforces the scope of investigative receiverships and the standards for judicial endorsement of receiver conclusions in complex financial disputes.
