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:

D & D Wines was a leading distributor of wines, which went into administration. One of its clients was an Australian wine producer called Angove. Two of Angove’s customers, who dealt through D & D, paid the company shortly after it had gone into administration and after Angove had terminated the agency agreement. Despite this, the Court of Appeal ruled that the money belonged to the company in administration for the benefit of all its creditors and was not held on trust for Angove.

Re Christophorus 3 Limited [2014] EWHC 1162 (Ch)

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

Commercial landlords will be familiar with the practice that has grown up since the 2010 case of Goldacre of putting companies into administration immediately following a quarter day. By adopting this tactic, administrators have been able to avoid paying rent as an administration expense until the next quarter day while continuing to use the premises for the benefit of the administration.

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:

In Kasten Energy Inc. v. Shamrock Oil & Gas Ltd., 2013 ABQB 63, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench considered the application of Kasten Energy Inc. (“Kasten”) to appoint a receiver over all of the assets and undertakings of Shamrock Oil & Gas Ltd. (“Shamrock”). The decision in this case presents a useful and concise summary of the applicable test for the appointment of a receiver.