This article has been contributed to the blog by Ziyi Shi. Ziyi Shi is an associate cross-appointed to the Corporate Group and Insolvency and Restructuring Group of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.
In the context of a tenant’s bankruptcy, Justice Romaine of the Alberta Queens Bench recently characterized a deposit provided under a lease as a security interest, as opposed to pre-paid rent, forcing an unsecured landlord to remit the money to a trustee in bankruptcy.
The existence of trusts that may be connected to a borrower’s assets can be a lending hazard. They do not appear on PPSA search print-outs and, in many cases, they are not shown on a borrower’s financial statements and cannot be searched through traditional due diligence methods.
On June 6, 2014, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) released additional reasons1 to his decision in Romspen Investment Corp. v. 6711162 Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 2781, centred on the cost submissions made by counsel to Romspen Investment Corp. (“Romspen”). Despite a contractual provision in a mortgage agreement that gave the applicant, Romspen, a right to full indemnity costs from the respondents, Justice Brown found that the legal fees incurred by counsel to Romspen were unreasonable.
This article has been contributed by Martin Desrosiers and Julien Morissette, partner and associate respectively, in the Insolvency & Restructuring Group of
The recent decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) in 306440 Ontario Ltd. v. 782127 Ontario Ltd.1 serves as a cautionary reminder to secured creditors that their position may not always be at the top of the insolvency food chain, even when they have taken all the proper steps to perfect their security interests.
On January 14, 2015, Target Corporation ("Target US") announced the exit of substantially all of its Canadian operations less than two years after opening its first Canadian stores in a strategic push to operate at least one store in every province of Canada. The following day, on January 15, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) in Toronto (the "Court") granted Target Canada Co.
Un avis de cotisation de l’Agence du revenu du Canada (l’ARC) constitue une mesure de recouvrement prouvable au sens de l’article 69.3 de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (LFI). Lorsque l’ARC est un créancier non garanti, la réclamation est sujette à la suspension des procédures de l’article 69.3 LFI, et pour lever cette suspension, l’ARC doit se présenter devant le tribunal, tel que prévu par l’article 69.4 LFI.
Recent decisions in the Ontario courts have brought this issue to the forefront, which is salient during this time of economic uncertainty for the oil industry and its related environmental obligations. The courts have had to focus on balancing competing public interests: those of creditors and the general health and safety of the public when a debtor has an outstanding obligation to remediate its pollution.
Antérieurement à sa faillite, la débitrice agissait à titre d’entreprise fournissant des services de « warehousing, receiving and shipping (pick and pack) ».
Après la faillite de l’entreprise survenue le 9 janvier 2014, l’un de ses anciens clients a réclamé du syndic la remise de ses inventaires.