Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Recent teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada court in Canada v Canada North Group Inc., 2021 SCC 30 [Canada North] had confirmed that the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (‘CCAA’) courts could grant super-priority charges (e.g. interim financing, administration charge, or directors’ and officers’ charges) ranking in priority to s.

On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Montréal (City) v.

Reverse vesting orders (or “RVOs”) allow the realization of value from assets of a debtor company in circumstances where a traditional transaction model is not effective, preserving the value of permits, tax losses and other assets which cannot be transferred to a purchaser. Two recent decisions demonstrate the willingness of courts to embrace creative solutions, where appropriate, to realize value for stakeholders.

What is a Reverse Vesting Order?

The Ontario Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) released its decision in 7636156 Canada Inc. (Re), 2020 ONCA 681 on October 28, 2020. The Court of Appeal clarified the law regarding a landlord’s entitlement to draw on a letter of credit where the underlying lease has been disclaimed by a trustee. Overturning the lower court decision, the Court of Appeal held the landlord was entitled draw down on the entire principal of the letter of credit pursuant to its terms and the terms of the disclaimed lease between the parties.

The global COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with an ill-timed crude oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia, has in a matter of mere weeks materially disrupted the global marketplace. While we are months or years away from understanding the full impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the economy at large, it is increasingly likely that we may be sliding into a recessionary period. We anticipate that businesses will need to restructure in one way or another to deal with immediate liquidity needs, or long-term financial health.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) has sent shock waves through global markets, businesses and supply chains. Boards of directors and senior management of businesses are likely asking themselves some tough questions. For instance:

1. What should we be doing to protect our employees and operations?

2. Can boards be responsible if employees get sick from COVID-19?

3. Do we really understand the risks to our business operations from COVID-19?

4. What happens if our supply chain vendors fail to perform their contracts with us?

The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.

The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.

In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.

Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.

What is set off?

Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.