We are asked from time to time to assist with the dissolution of an existing registered charity. However, often we suggest to our clients that it might be better for them to either amalgamate the existing charity into another charity or keep it in existence but inactive.
There are various reasons why charities wish to dissolve. Sometimes the problem that they were established to address has been solved. Sometimes there is no leadership left to govern or manage the charity. Other times the work once done by the charity has been taken over by another charity.
One of the primary reasons why people declare bankruptcy is that upon being discharged, the bankrupt person is released from their obligation to repay most of the debts that had existed at the time they went bankrupt. I say most because there are certain exceptions to this rule, debts that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Actitemizes as debts not released by an order of discharge.
While it is common practice in Canada to seek certain emergency orders on an ex parte basis (i.e. where only one party (and not the adversary) appears before a judge), applicants for such orders are held to a high standard of candour with the court.
Many secured creditors see their position in absolute terms. They rely on their general security and aggressively assert their priority over unsecured creditors, such as trade creditors. However, a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal(306440 Ontario Ltd. v. 782127 Ontario Ltd. (Alrange Container Services), 2014 ONCA 548) demonstrates that creative arguments by trade creditors may allow them to take priority over even secured creditors in certain circumstances, by using trust principles to remove assets from the estate.
Intellectual property rights are meant to protect that which cannot be easily protected: ideas, images, music and brands. The creators of these intangible concepts are given an economic monopoly over them, in the hopes of fostering greater creativity and economic growth. Bankruptcy law, on the other hand, seeks to equitably distribute the property of the bankrupt among its creditors, subject to the rights of secured creditors. There is an inherent conflict between the rights of two groups.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal will consider an interesting insolvency case involving hog feed suppliers who claim of priority for the cost of feed over Farm Credit Canada and Bank of Montreal, the hog producer’s secured creditors.
In general, the Court found Suppliers may have an unjust enrichment claim arising from an alleged fraud on the part of producer, who allegedly ordered feed while preparing for the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) application with no intention of paying for the feed.
For some, environmental liability is akin to a game of hot potato. In other words, no one wants to be the one left holding the potato when the music stops playing - otherwise they could be facing significant obligations to remedy contaminated lands. As remediation costs can be significant, owners, purchasers and creditors must tread carefully when dealing with contaminated real estate.
The Take-Away
Missing the limitations period for bringing a court action to recover a debt does not extinguish other legal rights and remedies in respect of that debt, such as bringing an application for bankruptcy or proving a claim in a bankruptcy estate.
The Case
In the recent decision of Frank v. Farlie, Turner & Co., LLC, 2011 ONSC 5519, Mr. Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found, among other things, that punitive damages are not available under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act as such damages are inconsistent with the scheme and purpose of Ontario’s statutory secondary market disclosure liability regime. In so doing, the court confirmed the fundamental importance of liability limits in continuous disclosure claims against directors and officers.
- Leases Over One Year Must be Registered in all Provinces Except Québec
In recent years the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) changed the scope of its application to include all leases for a term of more than one year, regardless of whether it is a “true” or “financing” lease. This is a different rule than exists in the United States and one often missed on cross border transactions.