Fulltext Search
Global Royalties Limited v. Brook: Bankrupt Has No Right to Appeal Order Lifting Stay of Proceedings

In his decision in Global Royalties Limited v. Brook, Chief Justice Strathy of the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) does not provide a bankrupt with a right to appeal an order lifting a stay of proceedings against him. Despite there being a multi-party bankruptcy, he rejected the submission that “the order or decision is likely to affect other cases of a similar nature in the bankruptcy proceedings”.

Canada, Ontario, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Royalty payment, Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 1985 (Canada), Court of Appeal for Ontario
Canadian Lender Defeats Environmental Claim

One of the most vexing commercial insolvency issues is the competition between creditors with security on environmentally troubled property and environmental authorities looking for deep pockets to fix the environmental problems. From a creditor’s point of view, a recent Alberta decision is a potential respite from environmental obligations being imposed on creditors of the owners of environmentally troubled property.

Canada, Alberta, Environment & Climate Change, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Miller Thomson LLP, Environmental remediation, Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 1985 (Canada)
Implications of the Redwater decision - Where does the buck stop?

Introduction

Canada, Alberta, Energy & Natural Resources, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Environmental remediation, Bankruptcy
Walchuk Estate v. Houghton: Final v. Interlocutory … Again

In Walchuk Estate v. Houghton, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the lower court’s adjournment of a contempt motion was a final order. The decision also provides guidance, yet again, on the proper test for distinguishing between final and interlocutory orders.

Background

Canada, Ontario, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Contempt of court, Motion to quash, Court of Appeal for Ontario
Distress Signals: Mitigating your risk when dealing with counterparties

The media have been paying considerable attention to the current financial distress of the energy industry in Alberta, focusing primarily on the impact a company’s financial condition can have on its stakeholders, including its employees, shareholders and creditors. But there is another group that is also being affected: counterparties to commercial arrangements with insolvent companies. Increasingly, financially strong companies are having to deal with insolvent joint venture partners, financially distressed operators, and bankrupt lessees.

Canada, Alberta, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
Stopping the revolution in its tracks: the Supreme Court of Canada decides Lemare Lake Logging Ltd. v. 3L Cattle Company Ltd.

On November 13, 2015, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Lemare Lake Logging Ltd. v.

Canada, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Real Estate, Miller Thomson LLP, Supreme Court of Canada
Grant Forest Products v. TD Bank: standard of review for discretionary CCAA decisions

In a proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), a judge has discretionary powers to, among other things, order debtor companies into bankruptcy and thereby resolve priority disputes. What should be the standard of review of such discretionary decisions? Historically, the standard has been high.

Canada, Ontario, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Standard of review, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Court of Appeal of Alberta
Indalex pension decision considered by Ontario Court of Appeal

Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 271 (Indalex), creditors and their advisors have been closely following jurisprudence which considers the scope of the decision.

Canada, Ontario, Employee Benefits & Pensions, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Liquidation, Supreme Court of Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario
La Cour supérieure entérine un processus contesté de vente mené par le séquestre nommé selon l’article 243 LFI.

Le 23 mai 2014, le juge Jean-François Émond désigne Lemieux Nolet inc. (le «Séquestre») comme séquestre de la débitrice Purgenesis Technologies inc. (la «Débitrice») et lui confère entre autres, les pouvoirs de vendre ou de disposer des actifs de la Débitrice.

Aussitôt, Monsieur Claude Moissan, syndic auprès du Séquestre, identifie les biens ainsi que les acheteurs potentiels.

Canada, Quebec, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Miller Thomson LLP
La subrogation dans une charge prioritaire ne peut s’accomplir sans l’autorisation du tribunal, mais l’autorisation d’en appeler est accordée.

Le 30 juillet 2014, un financement intérimaire est autorisé à être déboursé par Alternative Capital Group («ACG») en contrepartie duquel une charge prioritaire lui est transmise sur les actifs des débitrices Gestion Rer inc., Rer Hydro Ltd. et Hydrolienne Très Saint-Laurent Inc. (les «Débitrices»).

Peu de temps après, suite à la vérification diligente, ACG a cessé d’avancer des fonds aux Débitrices.

Le 28 août 2014, le Contrôleur met fin au mandat de ACG après avoir constaté que cette dernière n’avait alors avancé que la somme initiale de 371 000 $.

Canada, Quebec, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Miller Thomson LLP