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

On March 8, 2016, a New York Bankruptcy Court issued a bench decision in the Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation Chapter 11 case. The Court’s decision concerning a producer’s request to reject certain portions of its midstream agreements has sent shockwaves through the oil and gas industry. Although the decision is far more limited in scope than is being reported by many commentators and professionals, its impact may be far reaching.

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.

As part of a modernization project that was begun by the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules in 2008, most of the Official Bankruptcy Forms will be replaced with substantially revised, renumbered and reformatted versions, effective December 1, 2015 (New Forms). The New Forms were approved by the Judicial Conference on September 17, 2015.

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.

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.

Jackie Ford, partner in the Vorys Houston and Columbus offices, authored an article for Law360 onwhether traditional definitions of property and ownership include social media accounts. The full text of the article is included below.

WHO OWNS LIKES, POSTS, PAGES AND TWEETS IN BANKRUPTCY?

An Analysis of Ohio’s Amended Receivership Law Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP January 2015 © Copyright 2015, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. All Rights Reserved. vorys.com Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................1 Affected Statutes..........................................................................2 Grounds for Appointment............................................................2 Scope of Receiver’s Authority – “Property Receivers” vs.

In his November 20, 2014 decision in CanaSea PetroGas Group Holdings Limited (Re), Sharpe J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal did not accept the respondents’ submissions that he should decline to hear an application for leave to appeal a CCAA decision because only a three-judge panel should hear such an application.

The test for an extension of time to serve and file a late Notice of Appeal in Ontario is well-established in the case law: