Q: We've heard about the expiration of the “grandfather clause” (in French, clause grand-père) in the Cape Town Convention, whereby pre-existing rights and interests or their priorities in a State before the effective date of the Cape Town Convention in that State shall not be affected by the Cape Town Convention. We would like to know more details about:

1. Which article in the Cape Town Convention prescribes this rule?

2. Is this rule applicable in Canada?

Q: What is the difference between a general assignment of rents and leases and a specific assignment of rents and leases, and when should I include them in my term sheet for a commercial real estate financing of an Ontario property?

As a result of their “open” nature, the various Personal Property Registry systems in Canada are occasionally the subject of abuse. For example, in the midst of a litigation proceeding, it may be inappropriately suggested that to prevent an adversary from transferring or dealing with their assets, a financing statement should be registered in order to annoy the other party or to scare off any potential transferees.

In Caetano v Quality Meat Packers, 2017 ONSC 1199, Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court recently had opportunity to consider whether two representative proceedings commenced on behalf of two separate groups of employees against an insolvent employer ought to be struck because, despite the actions having been commenced within the applicable two year limitation period, the plaintiffs in those two actions had failed to obtain the necessary representation orders within the two year period.

La Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta (la « Cour ») a clarifié la façon dont seront traitées les demandes en cas d’abus dans le cadre de procédures en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Dans sa décision récente concernant l’affaire Lightstream Resources Ltd.

​On April 24, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124. The decision is arguably the past year’s most hotly anticipated and discussed decision in Alberta, despite involving bankruptcy proceedings of a relatively small junior oil and gas company. The Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 split, upheld the trial judge’s decision that a receiver can disclaim or renounce uneconomic assets that are subject to costly environmental liabilities.

The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal brought by the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Orphan Well Association from the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation. A majority of the panel held that the provisions of the provincial legislation governing certain actions of licensees of oil and gas assets do not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act over provincial legislation where the governing provisions conflict.

In a majority two to one decision released on April 24, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal has upheld the lower court ruling in Re Redwater Energy Corporation.

Last year we reported (here) that Alberta’s Redwater Energy Corporation decision signaled good news for lenders and noteholders secured by Alberta O&G assets because the federal Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) prevailed over conflicting provisions in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”).

In a much anticipated decision, a 2-1 majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal (the ABCA) has upheld the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (ABQB) decision in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278.