In a recent case involving Mantle Materials Group, Ltd. (2023 ABKB 488, “Mantle“), the intersection of environmental obligations and insolvency law in Canada has again come into sharp focus.

The stakes in the appeal from a recent case in Alberta,  Qualex-Landmark Towers  Inc  v  12-10  Capital Corp (“Qualex”) are rising with the recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta granting leave to intervene to the Canadian Bankers Association [Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2023 ABCA 177].  The Canadian Bankers Association sought leave to intervene on the basis that the decision in Qualex creates significant uncertainty for secured lending, particularly where the borrower may have environmental remediat

Despite optimistic predictions earlier in 2022, slowedglobal growth resulting, in part, from the war in Ukraine has elevated inflation and interest rates, reducing the availability of credit, increasing business borrowing costs and threatening the ability of companies to retain the confidence of their

The Commercial List of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently granted an order structurally similar to a reverse vesting order in the receivership proceedings of Vert Infrastructure Ltd. (Vert). This first-of-its-kind order was granted on the motion of Vert’s receiver, KSV Restructuring Inc. (KSV).¹

Although 2020 may be behind us, the economic conditions and lockdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic still linger. With the emerging picture for Canada in 2021 looking to largely resemble that of 2020, many are wondering how long struggling businesses and their creditors can hold their breath while waiting for improved cash flows and customer demand.

“An appeal”, explained one of my law school professors as he stretched out his arms, “is like taking off in a plane. Unless you understand the rules of physics, you won’t get the plane off the ground, no matter what grade of jet fuel is in the tank.”

Generally speaking, the policy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is not to interfere with secured creditors, leaving them free to realize upon their security. While this makes sense in the abstract, the question that is most often posed by secured creditors is “what does this mean in a practical sense?  What exactly do I need to do to retrieve my secured asset?”

Where a tenant becomes insolvent, landlords are often faced with a courtappointed Receiver inserted in place of the insolvent debtor who wishes to operate the tenant’s business or conduct a sale of assets on site. While the landlord may be able to successfully negotiate payment of occupation rent, a common issue that arises iswho is responsible for any damages to the leased premises? A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in General Motors Corporation v.

formal proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is a powerful alternative to bankruptcy. The benefits of a proposal for the debtor are clear: the debtor reduces its debt load and avoids bankruptcy. However, proposals are also beneficial to creditors since generally the creditor’s recovery in a proposal scenario is better than the potential recovery from a liquidation through a bankruptcy. In simple terms, upon the successful completion of a proposal, the debtor gets a “fresh start” and creditors recover more than they would in a bankruptcy.

The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Murphy v Sally Creek Environs Corporation, 2010 ONCA 312 (“Sally Creek”) is a cautionary tale for Trustees in bankruptcy (“Trustees”) and the counsel who represent them.1 In that case, the Trustee’s fees and those of its legal counsel were drastically reduced on a taxation, a cost award was made against the Trustee personally and the Trustee’s conduct was impugned in a detailed decision of the Bankruptcy Registrar and the Court of Appeal.