Court appoints EY as receiver over I-Way Group at NBC’s request

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) has appointed Ernst & Young Inc. as receiver over all of the assets, undertakings, and properties of the I-Way Group on application by National Bank of Canada. The order was granted by Justice Peter J. Cavanagh on December 18, 2025, with the receivership effective on January 9, 2026. The appointment covers Wings Freightway Inc., I-Way Transport Inc., I-Way Logistics Inc., and several affiliated real estate holding entities, together with proceeds thereof, including four industrial properties in Ontario, Alberta, and Manitoba.

The court accepted the bank’s position that it was just and convenient to impose a court-supervised process in light of continuing defaults, cross-collateralized security, and the lender’s inability to obtain reliable financial visibility despite months of engagement.

The I-Way Group operates an integrated trucking, warehousing, and logistics business across North America, with primary warehouse facilities located in Toronto, Winnipeg, and Calgary. The operating companies rely on a large fleet of transportation and storage equipment, alongside owned industrial real estate that anchors regional operations. As of 2024 reporting provided to the bank, the group disclosed a fleet of approximately 142 trucks, 216 trailers, and more than 700 containers and chassis.

The real estate portfolio is held through special purpose entities and includes the Worcester Road property in Etobicoke, the Nicolas Avenue property in Winnipeg, and two Calgary properties on 52 Street NE and 98 Avenue SE. Each of these properties is subject to mortgage security granted in favour of National Bank of Canada, with one Calgary asset also subject to a prior ranking charge in favour of Business Development Bank of Canada.

In March 2024, National Bank of Canada advanced a suite of demand credit facilities to the I-Way Group totaling approximately $47 million. The facilities refinanced prior lender exposure, funded ongoing operations, supported equipment acquisitions, and refinanced the group’s owned real estate. The lending package included operating lines, equipment facilities, and multiple demand mortgage loans, all supported by general security agreements, unlimited cross guarantees, and registered charges over the real properties.

Beginning in early 2025, the bank issued formal notices of default citing repeated failures to deliver required financial reporting, including audited annual financial statements, borrowing base certificates, and monthly margining packages. While the group provided some internal and compilation level statements, the bank maintained that these fell materially short of covenant requirements under the commitment letters. Defaults were not cured following notice.

To address growing concerns about financial visibility, the bank retained Ernst & Young as its financial advisor in February 2025, with the express consent of the I-Way Group. EY was mandated to review the group’s business, operations, and financial position, and to assess realizable value and enforcement options. Despite this consent, the bank’s evidence shows that EY was repeatedly unable to obtain timely access to accounting systems, payroll records, tax documentation, and on site meetings. A scheduled site visit in May 2025 did not proceed when management failed to attend.

The bank also attempted to commission third-party appraisals of the real properties through CBRE. Those efforts stalled when access for site inspections and supporting documentation was not provided, leaving the bank without independent valuation data to assess refinancing proposals or alternative outcomes.

On June 17, 2025, National Bank delivered formal demand letters and statutory notices of intention to enforce security. As of June 2025, indebtedness stood at approximately $43 million. Although forbearance discussions followed, no agreement was reached. Commencing in August 2025, the group also failed to make scheduled loan payments, resulting in arrears of approximately $650,000 by November.

The respondents opposed the receivership, arguing that the bank shifted reporting expectations mid-stream, destabilized operations by freezing operating credit, and refused to engage meaningfully with arm’s length purchase offers. The group pointed to a proposed $19 million transaction that it said would have repaid the bank in full and preserved going concern value. The court rejected those submissions, finding that the loans were demand facilities, that the bank was enforcing contractual rights, and that the proposed transactions did not obligate the bank to forego enforcement where a material shortfall remained.

The court emphasized that the appointment was intended to prevent a disorderly enforcement, preserve value where possible, and provide transparency to all stakeholders in light of prolonged defaults and the absence of reliable financial information.

Counsel is Chaitons for National Bank and VK Law for the respondents.