Secured Creditor’s Priority Over Unremitted GST/HST: SCC Grants Callidus Capital Corporation Leave to Appeal

On March 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Callidus Capital Corporation (the “Secured Creditor”) leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision that interpreted subsection 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (the “ETA”) as giving the Crown super priority to property received by a secured creditor from a tax debtor before bankruptcy.

On March 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Callidus Capital Corporation (the “Secured Creditor”) leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision that interpreted subsection 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (the “ETA”) as giving the Crown super priority to property received by a secured creditor from a tax debtor before bankruptcy.

Le 22 mars 2018, la Cour suprême du Canada a accordé à Callidus Capital Corporation (le « créancier garanti ») l’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la décision de la Cour d’appel fédérale dont l’interprétation du paragraphe 222(3) de la Loi sur la taxe d’accise (Canada) (la « LTA ») donne à la Couronne la priorité absolue sur les biens reçus par un créancier garanti d’un débiteur fiscal avant la faillite.

A number of companies within the Carillion group have been placed in compulsory liquidation. The Official Receiver has been appointed as liquidator, with support from PwC. It has been confirmed that there is no prospect of any return to shareholders.

Given the size of Carillion, the UK's second-biggest construction company, with 43,000 employees and contracts on a wide range of projects, including a number of flagship infrastructure projects, this will inevitably have a significant impact on the UK construction sector as a whole. Official advice from PwC is:

The Court of Appeal raises the bar for insolvent claimants on security for costs

Two recently published decisions in the TCC considered the enforceability of an Adjudicator's decision and insolvency issues

Typically, the TCC has sought to enforce an Adjudicator's decision and the avenues for the losing party to challenge the award is narrow. The case law regarding what may and may not give rise to a successful challenge is well known and outside the scope of this note.

Earlier this year, we wrote here about the decision in I.D.H. Diamonds NV v Embee Diamond Technologies Inc., 2017 SKQB 79, where Mr. Justice Layh held:

Affinity Credit Union 2013 v. Vortex Drilling Ltd. 2017 SKQB 228

National Insolvency Review, February 2017

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.

Les délais sont d’une importance primordiale dans le cadre de procédures judiciaires. 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 a décidé de l’application de certains délais du Code de procédure civile (ou C.p.c.) en complément de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (ci-après « Loi ») et des Règles générales sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (ci-après « Règles »).

Les faits