2019 was a busy year for corporate restructuring practitioners in Canada. The year saw an uptick in CCAA filings nationwide, with 38 total proceedings (up from the total of 21 filings in 2018). The Canadian restructuring landscape also some significant shake-ups, with important decisions and extensive legislative changes. The highlights are summarized below:

BIA & CCAA Amended

Four months on from our inaugural newsletter – and where do we start??

Theresa out, Boris in; champagne super overs at Lords; hottest bank holiday on record; largest ever peacetime repatriation (of holidaymakers); Parliament unlawfully prorogued; Brexit on hold (again); and a general election two weeks before Christmas. It’s been anything but dull.

The team have been equally as active in the same period, having seen a significant influx of new work. Amongst the main highlights were:

In Firepower Debt GP Inc. v.

Extensive amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) coming into force on November 1, 2019 through Bill C-97 will have a significant effect on certain aspects of insolvency proceedings commenced after that date. The wide-ranging revisions to both the BIA and CCAA will likely foster changes to the currently existing insolvency and restructuring practice in Canada.

Bill C-97 Overview

Bill C-97 amends both the BIA and CCAA to:

Des modifications importantes à la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité ("LFI") et à la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies ("LACC") entreront en vigueur le 1^er novembre 2019 avec l’adoption du projet de loi C-97. Elles auront une incidence importante sur certains aspects des procédures d’insolvabilité entreprises après cette date.

The ongoing priority dispute between deemed trusts created under federal “fiscal statutes” (being the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Employment Insurance Act) and priming charges arising under restructuring and insolvency legislatio

The Québec Court of Appeal confirmed that unpaid post-filing suppliers, which had neither sought a court-ordered charge to secure their post-filing claims nor availed themselves of their right to stop supplying goods or services to the debtor, cannot claim an implicit priority on the proceeds of sales of assets in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.

Background: going-concern sales of optometry clinics

The federal government’s budget implementation bill, Bill C-86[1], received Royal Assent on December 14, 2018. An aspect of the budget implementation bill is the amendment of various legislation, including the Patent Act, the Trademarks Act, as part of the government’s implementation of its intellectual property (“IP”) strategy.

In Yukon (Government of) v. Yukon Zinc Corporation, 2019 YKSC 39 (“Yukon Zinc”), the Yukon Supreme Court recently lifted a stay of proceedings imposed in proposal proceedings commenced in British Columbia by Yukon Zinc, a Vancouver-based mining company whose principal asset is the Wolverine Mine in Yukon.

The press reported recently that British Steel Limited had been placed into compulsory liquidation putting 5,000 jobs at risk. The Official Receiver took control of the company as part of the liquidation process. We understand that British Steel Limited continues to trade normally, but the limited company was transferred to the Official Receiver because the company did not have sufficient funds to pay for an administration.

A statement from the Official Receiver reported