Snaile: a monitor without a CCAA

Hemlock Point Capital Corp. applied on May 22, 2026 for the appointment of a receiver over Snaile Inc. under s. 243(1) of the BIA, s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario), per Application Record, May 22, 2026.

A week later, on consent, it got something short of that. Justice Myers signed an interim order appointing Grant Thornton Limited as Monitor — a word that in Canadian practice almost always means a CCAA monitor, and here does not, per Interim Order (Appointing Monitor), May 29, 2026.

The endorsement is a single sentence, and it is careful about exactly this:

On consent, order signed appointing Grant Thornton Limited as an officer of the court to be referred to as "Monitor" pursuant to s. 101 of the Court of Justice Act, s. 67 of the Personal Property Security Act, and s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

Per Endorsement of Justice Myers, May 29, 2026.

What is actually being appointed

There is no CCAA proceeding here and no stay of proceedings. The office is constructed out of three provincial statutes: the court's broad power under **s. 101 of the *Courts of Justice Act* to appoint a receiver or grant an injunction where it is just or convenient; s. 67 of the PPSA, which lets the court make orders in respect of secured parties and collateral; and s. 248 of the OBCA**, the oppression remedy, whose menu of available orders is famously open-ended.

What the appointee is, is stated precisely in the endorsement: an officer of the court, called Monitor. Not a receiver — it takes no possession, has no power to sell, borrow or carry on the business. Not a CCAA monitor — there is no plan, no stay, no statutory duties under s. 23.

The order is expressly temporary. Everything in it runs "until the disposition of this Application to appoint a Receiver over the Property, or further order of the Court", per Interim Order, May 29, 2026, para. 2.

So this is holding-the-ring relief. The receivership application is still live; this is what happens to the company while it is pending.

The injunctions

The substance of the order is six restraints, and they are worth reading as a set because each protects a different constituency, per Interim Order, May 29, 2026, para. 2.

The business. Snaile is restrained from carrying on or conducting its business, or dealing with its property, except in the ordinary course and in a manner consistent with the preservation of the business and property. That is the general clause; everything else particularises it.

Insiders. Snaile is restrained from making any payment of salary, expense reimbursement, loan repayment, dividend or other distribution to any shareholder, director or officer, except consistent with preservation and with the monitor's prior approval or leave of the court.

Employees, expressly carved out. The same paragraph then provides that Snaile does not need the monitor's approval or leave to pay employees their ordinary wages and salaries as and when due, or expense reimbursements, in the ordinary course and consistent with existing written employment agreements.

That carve-out is the difference between an order that stabilises a business and one that stops it. A freeze on outgoing payments that catches payroll causes the workforce to leave within a pay cycle, and there is nothing left to preserve. Drawing the line at insiders — and requiring the employment terms to be in writing and pre-existing — targets the actual risk without touching the people who keep the doors open.

Suppliers and customers. Snaile is restrained from terminating or breaching its agreements or other arrangements with, or otherwise impairing its relationships with, its suppliers and customers, without approval.