Les délais sont d’une importance primordiale dans le cadre de procédures juridiciaires. Le défaut de les respecter peut impliquer le rejet d’une action.

Dans l’affaire 9190-0753 Québec Inc. (Syndic de), 2016 QCCS 1983 (29-04-2016) le juge Stephen W. Hamilton décide de l’application de certains délais du Code de procédure civile (ou C.p.c.) en complément des Règles générales sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (ci-après « Règles »).

Les faits

Most or all creditors who lend to farmers will be familiar with the Farm Debt Mediation Act, S.C. 1997, c. 21 (the “FDMA”) and the need to serve a notice under the FDMA before taking action against a farmer. However, there are some details of how the FDMA operates that may not be as well-known. This piece will highlight some of those details.

“An appeal”, explained one of my law school professors as he stretched out his arms, “is like taking off in a plane. Unless you understand the rules of physics, you won’t get the plane off the ground, no matter what grade of jet fuel is in the tank.”

Court appointed receivers commonly assume control over all of a debtor’s property. In assuming that control, the receiver may collect various pieces of the debtor’s leased equipment, and include that equipment in a sale of the debtor’s assets. Further, the court order appointing the receiver will typically grant the receiver a priority charge over all such equipment for its fees, including the fees of its counsel, and any borrowings it may make in the course of the receivership.

Michigan Court Rule 2.622 (the “Receivership Rule”) governs the appointment of receivers. The Receivership Rule was amended in 2014 to provide more explicit guidance on what courts and attorneys should consider when nominating a receiver. Specifically, the 2014 amendments addressed concerns that trial courts were disregarding qualified nominations made by the parties to the litigation in favor of judicial discretion in appointing a disinterested party to maintain the receivership estate.

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.

A Supreme Court ruling this week should give creditors a powerful tool to collect their debts from debtors who try to transfer assets before seeking bankruptcy protection. The primary reason an individual may turn to personal bankruptcy is to protect assets from creditor collection while obtaining a “discharge” from debts. Such protection is increasingly necessary where an individual is being pursued by one or more creditors, particularly where those creditors may have obtained (or are about to obtain) judgments against the individual.

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

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.

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 $.