In 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision that the BIA prevailed over a conflicting provision in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

Public consultations on enhancing retirement security led by the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada closed in late 2018. Given the importance and complexity of the subject matter, the one-month consultation period offered by the government was curiously short. Given that 2019 is an election year, the quick completion of the process could suggest that the federal government anticipated the direction in which it would proceed with any legislation.

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Orphan Well Association, Alberta Energy Regulator v. Grant Thornton Limited and ATB Financial.[1] This important decision may have profound implications, potentially limiting the ability of oil and gas producers to secure credit and impairing the effectiveness of the insolvency system where debtors have significant regulatory obligations.

In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:

In Callidus Capital Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen,[1] the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a troubling 2017 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the bankruptcy of a debtor extinguishes the deemed trust for unremitted GST and HST created in favour of the Crown (“CRA”) by section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”).

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

38144 Ronald Baldovi v. Her Majesty the Queen 

(Man.)

Courts – Judges – Reasonable apprehension of bias

On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor is not impaired for the purpose of voting on a plan if it is the Bankruptcy Code (as opposed to plan treatment) that impairs a creditor’s claim. The court further held that a make-whole premium is a claim for unmatured interest which is not an allowable claim under Bankruptcy Code, absent application of the “solvent-debtor” exception which may or not apply—the issue was remanded to the bankruptcy court for decision.

On January 15th, 2019, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that the end user of an electricity forward contact was not entitled to the benefits of the safe harbor provisions under Section 556 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 556 allows a “forward contract merchant” to terminate a forward contract post-petition based on an ipso facto clause in the contract and exempts such actions from the automatic stay.

2018 was the "year of the CVA", slashing rents and forcing landlords to get to grips with long-winded CVA proposal documents in an attempt to allow struggling tenants to manage their debts, turn around their businesses and avoid terminal insolvency situations.

The unfortunate reality is that even if they are approved by landlords and other creditors, not all these CVAs will be successful and many tenants are likely to end up in administration.

Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security