In a recent case involving Mantle Materials Group, Ltd. (2023 ABKB 488, “Mantle“), the intersection of environmental obligations and insolvency law in Canada has again come into sharp focus.

The stakes in the appeal from a recent case in Alberta,  Qualex-Landmark Towers  Inc  v  12-10  Capital Corp (“Qualex”) are rising with the recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta granting leave to intervene to the Canadian Bankers Association [Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2023 ABCA 177].  The Canadian Bankers Association sought leave to intervene on the basis that the decision in Qualex creates significant uncertainty for secured lending, particularly where the borrower may have environmental remediat

“An appeal”, explained one of my law school professors as he stretched out his arms, “is like taking off in a plane. Unless you understand the rules of physics, you won’t get the plane off the ground, no matter what grade of jet fuel is in the tank.”

Generally speaking, the policy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is not to interfere with secured creditors, leaving them free to realize upon their security. While this makes sense in the abstract, the question that is most often posed by secured creditors is “what does this mean in a practical sense?  What exactly do I need to do to retrieve my secured asset?”

Where a tenant becomes insolvent, landlords are often faced with a courtappointed Receiver inserted in place of the insolvent debtor who wishes to operate the tenant’s business or conduct a sale of assets on site. While the landlord may be able to successfully negotiate payment of occupation rent, a common issue that arises iswho is responsible for any damages to the leased premises? A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in General Motors Corporation v.

The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Murphy v Sally Creek Environs Corporation, 2010 ONCA 312 (“Sally Creek”) is a cautionary tale for Trustees in bankruptcy (“Trustees”) and the counsel who represent them.1 In that case, the Trustee’s fees and those of its legal counsel were drastically reduced on a taxation, a cost award was made against the Trustee personally and the Trustee’s conduct was impugned in a detailed decision of the Bankruptcy Registrar and the Court of Appeal.

formal proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is a powerful alternative to bankruptcy. The benefits of a proposal for the debtor are clear: the debtor reduces its debt load and avoids bankruptcy. However, proposals are also beneficial to creditors since generally the creditor’s recovery in a proposal scenario is better than the potential recovery from a liquidation through a bankruptcy. In simple terms, upon the successful completion of a proposal, the debtor gets a “fresh start” and creditors recover more than they would in a bankruptcy.

Significant insolvency law amendments were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (the “Amendments”). The Amendments were contained in Bill C-55 which received Royal Assent on November 25, 2005 and in Bill C-12 which received Royal assent on December 14, 2007, but the Amendments were not proclaimed into force until September 18, 2009.

As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This expression is particularly apt when it comes to secured creditors and their registrations under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (the “PPSA”). Although “getting it right the first time” has always been the mantra of secured creditors, the economic roller coaster ride of recent months has heightened the need to ensure a properly perfected secured claim.

No doubt by now, every creditor knows of the new protections given to employees in the face of a company’s insolvency as a result of the enactment of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) and related amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) on July 7, 2008.