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:

Earlier this year, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published its consultation on the second PPF Levy Triennium (2015/16 to 2017/18) which proposed wholesale changes to the measure of insolvency risk and significant changes in respect of contingent assets and the PPF’s treatment of asset-backed contributions. 

As we await the outcome of the consultation, employers and trustees may find a summary of the proposals helpful in trying to gauge how they could impact their scheme’s PPF levy. 

The PPF-specific insolvency risk model

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada denied a group of investors leave to appeal the approval of a settlement releasing Ernst & Young LLP from any claims arising from its auditing of Sino-Forest Corporation. The settlement is part of Sino-Forest’s Plan of Compromise and Reorganization following a bankruptcy triggered by allegations of corporate fraud.

The Settlement

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Game it is necessary to consider the effect of the court’s decision on the treatment of rents in administration and by analogy liquidation – and the potential consequences of that change.

What types of insolvency does the decision affect?

The Court of Appeal’s decision explicitly states that it is applicable as to the treatment of rents in both administration and liquidation.

What about existing cases?

Michael John Andrew Jervis v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others [2013] EWHC 2171 (Ch) (“Game”)

Game has come to the courts against the background of two previous High Court decisions on the treatment of lease rents in administration. Recent decisions on this point have arisen out of cases where landlords made claims for rent in the administration of tenant companies.

In a recent judgment, HHJ Cooke found in favour of the defendant solicitors in a claim by the Trustees in Bankruptcy of Clifford Shore that Irwin Mitchell had failed properly to advise Mr Shore as to the risk of pursuing litigation that was subject to limitation arguments.

Kevin Hellard, Amanda Wade v Irwin Mitchell [2013] EWHC 3008 (Ch)

Background

On October 28, 2013, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) announced that it had reached a settlement with the former directors and officers of Northstar Aerospace whereby those former directors and officers agreed to pay $4.75 million for costs associated with the remediation of contaminated lands owned by the now-bankrupt company. The Environmental Review Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement at the hearing held on October 28.

Upon the filing of an appeal of a bankruptcy order, that order is stayed pursuant to section 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). In Msi Spergel v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to decide whether that stay suspends the limitation period applicable to a motion by a trustee to set aside a preferential payment by a bankrupt under s. 95 of the BIA.

In a decision rendered on August 15, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Nortel denied a motion for leave to appeal in a CCAA proceeding, reiterating the stringent test for leave to appeal in such circumstances. More importantly for our purposes, the court reiterated the necessity for a motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence where the moving party seeks to rely upon such evidence.

The test for granting leave to appeal in Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act proceedings is well-settled: