The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Canada v.Canada North Group Inc.[1] provided much needed clarity regarding the order of priority for unremitted source deductions in restructuring proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has released its decision in Canada North, conclusively resolving the priority dispute between deemed trusts created under the federal “fiscal statutes” (being the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”), the

Suppliers and subcontractors in the construction industry should be mindful of a recent unreported decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In Carillion Canada Inc. (Re), the Court held that an automatic cash sweep of Carillion’s Ontario bank account rid the funds of their trust character leaving Carillion’s subcontractors in Canada with no proprietary claim to $22 million sitting in an overseas bank account maintained with a global bank (the “Bank”).

On June 17, 2021, McCarthy Tétrault virtually hosted A Panel Discussion about the CCAA with Partners Heather Meredith, Jacques Rousse, and Awanish Sinha. The discussion focused on the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), reasons why organizations use the CCAA, and particular insights about the Laurentian University CCAA proceeding.

The following are some key takeaways from the panel:

Dans l’affaire Chandos Construction Ltd c Restructuration Deloitte Inc, la Cour suprême rend une décision concernant le test applicable à la règle anti-privation, qui a pour but d’empêcher de contourner les règles législatives et de common law d’insolvabilité par voie contractuelle.

In the matter of Chandos Construction Ltd v Restructuring Deloitte Inc, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a judgment on the anti-deprivation rule, which is intended to prevent contracts from frustrating statutory and common law rules relating to insolvency. The Court established that a clause triggered by an event of insolvency or bankruptcy and which has the effect of removing value from the insolvent’s estate is void and unenforceable.

Dans l'affaire de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies du détaillant nord-américain Groupe Dynamite, le Juge Kalichman, siégeant alors à la Cour supérieure du Québec, rend un jugement sur le traitement des taxes de vente pré-dépôt devant être remises par les débiteurs. La Cour exerce son pouvoir discrétionnaire afin de modifier l’ordonnance pour préciser que seules les taxes de vente accumulées ou perçues après la date de l’ordonnance initiale doivent être payées immédiatement aux autorités fiscales.

Reverse vesting orders (or “RVOs”) allow the realization of value from assets of a debtor company in circumstances where a traditional transaction model is not effective, preserving the value of permits, tax losses and other assets which cannot be transferred to a purchaser. Two recent decisions demonstrate the willingness of courts to embrace creative solutions, where appropriate, to realize value for stakeholders.

What is a Reverse Vesting Order?

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released a decision in Bellatrix Exploration Ltd.’s (“Bellatrix”) proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), in which the Court dismissed Bellatrix’s appeal of the lower court’s decision that certain agreements (the “Contract”) between Bellatrix and BP Canada Energy Group ULC (“BP”) constituted an eligible financial contract (“EFC”).

The recent decision of Justice B.E.