Resin Systems Inc. v. Global Composite Manufacturing Inc., [2008] O.J. No. 5427, (Ont. S.C.J., Commercial List)
Resin developed certain equipment used to manufacture transmission poles. Resin entered into a manufacturing and licence agreement with Global Composite, and leased the equipment to Global Composite to make and improve the product. The agreements provided Global Composite was to keep the equipment free of any lien or claim, unless there was the express written consent of Resin.
Innovation Credit Union v. Bank of Montreal [2009] S.J. No. 147; 2009 SKCA 35, on appeal from 2007 SKQB 471
October 1991: Saskatchewan farmer James Buist (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Innovation Credit Union (“CU”). The general security agreement was not perfected under the Saskatchewan Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) by registration.
As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This expression is particularly apt when it comes to secured creditors and their registrations under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (the “PPSA”). Although “getting it right the first time” has always been the mantra of secured creditors, the economic roller coaster ride of recent months has heightened the need to ensure a properly perfected secured claim.
American Bankruptcy Institute: Caribbean Symposium 2009
Introduction
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Saulnier (Receiver of) v. Saulnier has changed the basis for determining whether a licence is property under a provincial Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) and the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).
On July 7, 2008 specific provisions of the Insolvency Reform Act, 2005 and the Insolvency Reform Act, 2007 were proclaimed into force by Order in Council. As a result, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the “WEPPA”) and certain related amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) have come into immediate effect.
Certain of those amendments are intended to protect current and former employees of insolvent companies and will affect lenders to insolvent businesses.
The relationship between Canada and the United States is one of the closest and most extensive in the world. With the equivalent of $1.6 billion in bilateral trade every day3, it is no surprise that a large number of US companies have subsidiary operations and assets located in Canada. Despite numerous socio-economic similarities between both countries and legal regimes both anchored in the tradition of common law, there are a number of legal differences that have the potential to significantly impact US companies doing business in Canada.
Typically, courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.
However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that the courts can adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (the "Act").
In order to get the information necessary to seize a debtor's assets or garnish his income, Rule 60.18 of the Rules of Court permit a creditor to require a debtor to attend an examination under oath before a court reporter and be questioned in relation to:
(a) the reason for non-payment or non-performance of the judgment;
(b) the debtor's income and property;
(c) the debts owed to and by the debtor;
(d) the disposal the debtor has made of any property either before or after the making of the order;
Courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.
However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that it could adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (“Act”).