review, one that accords with the standard applicable generally to
a trial judge’s interpretation of a contract.
 Accordingly, absent an extricable error of law, an interpretation that involves palpable and overriding errors of fact, or one
that is clearly unreasonable, the trial judge’s interpretation
should not be interfered with.
(d) The factual matrix
 The trial judge did not expressly identify which facts he
considered to be the factual matrix relevant to the Plan’s interpretation. But he did make significant findings about how and
why the Plan came about. It is the “facts giving rise to the plan”
that are important to determine its scope and meaning: Catalyst
(Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 110. Here, those facts include that SFC had
been forced to file for CCAA protection because of the fraud and the
consequences of its discovery; the appellant had been identified,
including by the OSC, as allegedly having been involved in that
fraud; it had already been determined that the assets SFC offered
in the sales process were worth substantially less than the
amount of its debt so that additional sources of recovery by SFC,
including recoveries through litigation, would be important; and
class actions by SFC stakeholders were already pending against
the appellant, amongst others, in which SFC stakeholders, but
not SFC itself, were advancing claims.
(e) The purposes of the CCAA and of the Plan
 The full title of the CCAA states that it is “An Act to
facilitate compromises and arrangements between companies and
their creditors”. “The CCAA has the simultaneous objectives of
maximizing creditor recovery, preservation of going-concern value
where possible, preservation of jobs and communities affected by
the firm’s financial distress, rehabilitation of honest but unfortunate debtors, and enhancement of the credit system generally”
(emphasis added): Janis P. Sarra, Rescue!: The Companies Creditors Arrangement Act, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2013), at p. 14.
 Creditors are a key constituency under the CCAA, as the
approval of specified majorities of creditors is required for a plan
of compromise and arrangement to be effective: CCAA, s. 6(1).
Given the objectives of the CCAA and the need for creditor
approval, it is reasonable to expect that the goal of a plan will be
to maximize the value to be obtained from the insolvent corporation’s assets, including its intangible rights such as litigation
claims, so as to enhance ultimate distributions to creditors. A key
barometer of a plan’s acceptability is how it proposes to achieve