On November 16, 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (“MGCS”) posted the Fall 2016 report (the “Report”)[1] of the Business Law Advisory Council (the ”Council”), which was formed by the MGCS in March 2016 to put forward recommendations for modernizing Ontario’s corporate and commercial statutes.

Does a fine imposed on a debtor by the disciplinary committee of the Chambre de la sécurité financière after the date of the debtor's bankruptcy constitute a provable claim pursuant to section 121(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA")?

Introduction

Below are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal.

Topics covered this week included a number of civil procedure issues (civil contempt, appeal routes, administrative dismissals for delay), of couple of real property/municipal law cases (dedication of roads, relief from forfeiture) and an unjust enrichment case in the context of a family dispute.

We always welcome your comments and feedback. Please feel free to share this blog with others.

Have a nice weekend.

On December 10, 2016, the Forfeited Corporate Property Act, 2015 ("FCPA") came into force in Ontario. The FCPA has the effect of amending the Ontario Business Corporations Act ("OBCA") and the Corporations Act. There are also similar amendments made to the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act ("ONPCA"), but they have not yet come into force. The legislation effects changes to forfeiture of corporate real estate and corporate record-keeping requirements.

Background

Eight years ago, Nortel Networks Inc. and many affiliates filed multiple insolvency proceedings, across Europe, the US, and Canada. At the outset, the debtors expected creditor recoveries would be small.

It is well-established that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to approve a plan of compromise or arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act that includes releases in favour of third-parties. The leading decision on the issue remains Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., which arose in response to the liquidity crisis that threatened the Canadian market in asset-backed commercial paper after the U.S.

On January 25, 2017, the British Columbia Supreme Court rendered its decision in Tudor Sales Ltd. (Re), 2017 BCSC 119.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia made an order that the funds in a Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) could not be seized by the Trustee-in-Bankruptcy of the bankrupt beneficiary to satisfy the claims of creditors.

If you are served with a demand letter from your lender, you don’t have to fold up your tent and give in. If, like most companies, you feel that if you had more time, you could improve the situation (to the benefit of the Bank and the company), there are options. Here are 5 things that you can consider which will make it more likely that the Bank will either agree, or be forced to agree, to give you some more time to come up with a better solution.

The Collapse Of Coal

Supreme Court of Gibraltar recognises United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings as a foreign main proceeding.

Canadian insolvency proceedings of Pacific Exploration & Production Corporation recognised as main proceedings by Colombia and US Bankruptcy Court