The extraordinary turmoil in the financial markets in recent times has caused many major economies, including the Canadian economy, to enter into a recessionary period. With the financial sector still trying to cope with the shocks of 2007 and 2008, prospects for a full Canadian economic recovery in the near future appear uncertain. Recent decisions by well-established Canadian companies such as Nortel Networks and Masonite International Corporation (a Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

A recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal has rationalized the approach to be taken by Courts in considering appeals in CCAA cases.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently permitted a debtor to establish a "hardship" fund to pay obligations incurred prior to the debtor's CCAA filing to local suppliers operating in the debtor’s community.

Vanquish Oil & Gas (“Vanquish”), now in receivership, was a trustee under a joint operating agreement for an oil well. It was required to remit 45% of the well’s net production proceeds to a proportional owner - either Karl Oil and Gas Ltd. or Choice Resources Corporation (who disputed the entitlement at the time).

The Wage Earner Protection Program Act, S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the “WEPPA”), came into force on July 7, 2008. This paper will set out the implications of the WEPPA on insolvency practice and provide a brief analysis of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and 383838 B.C. Ltd. (Re), 2009 BCSC 41 (“LeRoy Trucking”), the only reported decision regarding the WEPPA (as at the date of this paper) since the legislation came into force.

I. Introduction to the WEPPA

Magna Enterprises Corp. (“MEC”), a foreign bankrupt corporation, brought an application for ancillary relief pursuant to s. 18.6 of the CCAA. Section 18.6 gives the court the power to “make such orders and grant such relief as it considers appropriate to facilitate, approve or implement arrangements that will result in a co-ordination of proceedings under this Act with any foreign proceeding”.

Retention of key employees is a primary concern of any company that is seeking to survive a restructuring process as a viable operating business. The question is how to ensure that employee retention payments fairly balance the goal of retaining employees who are key to the restructuring against the financial impact on other stakeholders of the implementation of such a program. Beyond that, in the case of a cross-border restructuring, one must be aware of the difference between Canadian and US law on the issue of employee retention.  

Radius Credit Union Limited v. Royal Bank of Canada [2009] S.J. No. 148, 2009 SKCA 36, on appeal from
2007 SKQB 472

1992: Farmer Wayne Hingtgen (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Radius
Credit Union Limited (“CU”) granting a security interest on all his present and after
acquired assets.

Mercedes Benz Financial v. Ivica Kovacevic (Ont. SCJ)

February 26, 2009: Finding of contempt of Court: [2009] O.J. No. 783

March 3, 2009: Sentencing hearing and order of five days in jail [2009] O.J. No. 888

Mr. Kovacevic (the “Debtor”) entered into a conditional sale contract to finance a Mercedes vehicle with

Mercedes Benz Financial. After seven of forty-eight payments, he defaulted in payment. He refused to pay or return the vehicle.

GE financed two tractor trailers for Brampton Leasing & Rentals Ltd. (“Debtor”) under conditional sale contracts and perfected its security under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (“PPSA”).

The Debtor leased the vehicles to lessees, who obtained vehicle insurance from ING. GE was not named as a loss payee by the Debtor or the lessees.