A Toronto judge has ruled that Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP will represent more than 9,000 employees and 3,000 retirees of the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) in its ongoing creditor protection proceedings, putting an end to a heated battle between competing law firms seeking the role.
The endorsement, filed by Justice Peter Osborne on Monday, May 5, marks an important development in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) case that has gripped one of Canada’s oldest and most iconic department store chains.
Dispute Over Representation Sparked Court Review
The appointment comes after tensions flared during a prior court hearing when multiple law firms—including Koskie Minsky LLP and Gowling WLG—contested the company’s selection process.
After soliciting interest from six legal firms, HBC’s legal team and its court-appointed Monitor recommended Ursel Phillips, citing the firm’s prior work in high-profile insolvencies involving Sears Canada and Nordstrom Canada.
However, Koskie Minsky, retained by 420 HBC workers, objected strongly to the selection process, calling it flawed and lacking transparency. The firm argued that only the court, not the company, has the authority to determine who should represent workers and retirees.
In response, Koskie Minsky requested that former Associate Chief Justice Douglas Cunningham be appointed to oversee the decision.
Justice Osborne agreed that the process required further review—but declined to appoint Cunningham, citing concerns over perceived bias. Instead, he appointed retired Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel, formerly of the Commercial List of the Ontario Superior Court, to evaluate the submissions and make a recommendation to the court.
Five Law Firms Evaluated for Key Role
Wilton-Siegel conducted a comprehensive review of proposals submitted by five qualified law firms, each with significant commercial and insolvency experience.
“The decision to select one proposal out of five was difficult,” Wilton-Siegel acknowledged in his report to the court.
The evaluation focused on five key criteria:
- Independence from HBC and the Monitor
- Relevant insolvency and class action experience
- Ability to effectively communicate with large employee groups
- Cost efficiency
- Willingness to work constructively with the Monitor
While all proposals demonstrated strength, Wilton-Siegel noted that several firms had conflicts of interest or prior legal ties to Hudson’s Bay.
Specifically, Koskie Minsky had previously participated in a class action lawsuit against HBC—a fact Wilton-Siegel found problematic. While such ties might be addressed through legal safeguards, he emphasized the importance of perceived impartiality.
“It is preferable that employee counsel be viewed as free of conflicts and past associations with the company or Monitor,” Wilton-Siegel wrote.
Why Ursel Phillips Was Chosen
Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP stood out for its conflict-free profile, as well as its deep understanding of the complex legal and emotional issues facing HBC employees and retirees.
The firm demonstrated a “thoughtful and sophisticated” approach to both the legal complexities of the CCAA process and the human realities facing non-unionized workers, retirees, and beneficiaries.
Wilton-Siegel concluded that Ursel Phillips would offer efficient and credible representation that meets the needs of the large and diverse group of stakeholders, while maintaining the independence and professionalism required in such a high-stakes restructuring.
Judge: One Law Firm Will Represent All—For Now
In his original ruling issued orally on April 24, 2025, and later formalized in writing, Justice Osborne confirmed that only one representative counsel would be appointed at this stage of proceedings.
Some had argued that sub-groups, such as recipients of Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) benefits, required separate representation. However, Osborne found that all affected stakeholders currently share a “commonality of interest.”
“This process can be best served today by the appointment of one representative counsel firm,” Osborne said, emphasizing that separate counsel could be considered in the future if materially divergent interests emerge.
He also stated that the Monitor will act as an interface between stakeholders and the Independent Third Party throughout the process and confirmed that the legal fees of the appointed firm will be covered by HBC as part of an administrative charge capped at $100,000.
Next Steps in the CCAA Process
Now formally appointed, Ursel Phillips will represent HBC’s non-unionized employees and retirees as the CCAA proceedings unfold. Their mandate includes communicating legal updates, answering questions from affected parties, and participating in court proceedings involving employment-related entitlements.
This includes matters related to:
- Post-retirement health and dental benefits, which HBC has discontinued
- Life insurance and long-term disability claims
- SERP benefits, some of which are underfunded or terminated
- Communication with surviving spouses and beneficiaries
The Pension Plan, which remains in place and is currently reported to be fully funded, is excluded from their mandate. Oversight of that plan has been transferred to Telus Health, appointed by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA).
