Insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) are generally practical and solution-oriented. Creativity is rewarded and, if there is a conflict between insolvency law’s practical focus on achieving desirable commercial outcomes on the one hand, and the requirements—often technical in nature—under other statutes such as the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) on the other, courts often apply insolvency law in a manner that gives priority to achieving those commercial outcomes.

Appeals under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) generally result in an automatic stay of the order under appeal—a potentially costly and disruptive outcome. Accordingly, the BIA requires by default that an interested party first seek leave to appeal a lower court decision unless its appeal meets a set of prescribed circumstances that appears broad but, in practice, has been construed very narrowly by the courts (i.e., making it difficult to obtain leave to appeal). In Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Insolvency legislation is full of trade-offs—chief among them is expediency versus fairness. On the one hand, insolvencies are often urgent matters with the fate of the debtor’s business or the value of its assets resting on a speedy and efficient resolution of its creditors’ claims. On the other hand, those creditors expect to be treated fairly and receive a real opportunity to advance and resolve their claims, which often entails a slow, deliberate process.

With the recent flurry of reverse vesting orders (RVOs) in Canadian insolvency proceedings in the last two years, courts have warned against over-use of this distressed M&A structure. In PaySlate Inc. (Re), 2023 BCSC 608, the Supreme Court of British Columbia hit reverse.

Individuals undergo bankruptcy proceedings for many reasons, chief among them to seek relief from their debts and obtain a fresh financial start. However, the opportunity for a fresh start can be limited when the bankrupt’s debts arise from securities fraud. In the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Poonian v.