When an employer is insolvent and administrators appointed, job losses are often an inevitable consequence. In this blog we look at the legal obligations arising where redundancies meet the threshold for collective consultation, and the implications for administrators arising out of the recent Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another.

When does the legal obligation to collectively consult apply?

On 24 February, the Government published draft regulations that, if implemented, will impose new restrictions on pre-pack administration sales to connected parties. For all `substantial disposals' (which will include `pre-pack' sales) to connected parties, taking place within eight weeks of the administrators' appointment, the administrators will either need creditor consent or a report from an independent `evaluator'.

Context

• On November 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) reversed the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Callidus Capital Corporation v.

• Dans son arrêt du 8 novembre 2018, la Cour suprême du Canada a infirmé la décision de la Cour d’appel fédérale (Callidus Capital Corporation c.

• On January 12, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) delivered its judgment in North Shore Power Group Inc. v.

Le 20 février dernier, une formation de trois juges de la Cour d'appel du Québec, sous la plume du juge Paul Vézina, a confirmé le jugement de première instance de la Cour supérieure dans l'affaire Métaux Kitco Inc.1, lequel avait refusé à l'administration fiscale la possibilité d'opérer compensation entre une dette fiscale existant avant les procédures de restructuration et des crédits et remboursements de taxes sur intrants (« CTI/RTI ») en TPS et TVQ ayant

On February 1, 2016, the Superior Court of Québec delivered its judgment in the important Kitco Metals Inc. case ¹.

In its decision in The Queen v. Callidus Capital Corporation¹, rendered on August 17, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada examined, on a retrospective basis, the Crown's absolute priority regarding proceeds remitted to secured creditors from the assets of a tax debtor that are deemed to be held in trust (deemed trust) under section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (the "ETA") prior to such tax debtor's bankruptcy.

On September 4, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a taxpayer's application for leave to appeal in the matter of Rita Congiu et autre c. Agence du revenu du Québec et autre(35830/35833).

In a succinct decision rendered on January 12, the same day as the hearing, the Supreme Court of Canada finally settled the question of whether requirements to pay, issued pursuant to section 317 of the Excise Tax Act ("ETA") prior to the bankruptcy of a tax debtor, but not paid before such time, remain valid against the garnishee.1 Supreme Court Justice LeBel, speaking on behalf of the Court, simply stated that the Court agreed with the reasons of Noël J.A. of the Federal Court of Appeal.