The Lightstream decision confirms that Canadian courts have the jurisdiction under the CCAA to both: (i) incorporate and apply the oppression remedy; and (ii) where appropriate, when oppressive conduct has occurred, grant an order requiring a corporation to issue additional securities. However, such jurisdiction is limited and defined by the scheme and purpose of the CCAA.

​In Re Lightstream Resources Ltd, 2016 ABQB 665 (Lightstream), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) confirmed that it had jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct while a business is restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The decision also provides insight as to when a court might exercise its equitable jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct in a CCAA proceeding.

Background

When a lender makes an interest bearing loan to a borrower for a fixed term, the contract may provide that the borrower cannot repay the principal sum before maturity. This is often referred to as a “no call” provision. The intent of this provision is to protect the lender’s expected return on its investment during the term of the contract. Otherwise, the lender could be faced with the loss of interest payments that the borrower would have otherwise paid to the lender.

From the public policy standpoint, there has been a shift towards more environmental stewardship in Canada, evidenced by heightened media attention on environmental issues and by an expanded legal framework relating to the management of environmental liabilities. For example, directors may be personally liable for violation of environmental statutes1 and may face reputational harm if the corporations they manage are found to have breached environmental rules or norms.

On December 10, 2016, the Forfeited Corporate Property Act, 2015 ("FCPA") came into force in Ontario. The FCPA has the effect of amending the Ontario Business Corporations Act ("OBCA") and the Corporations Act. There are also similar amendments made to the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act ("ONPCA"), but they have not yet come into force. The legislation effects changes to forfeiture of corporate real estate and corporate record-keeping requirements.

Does a fine imposed on a debtor by the disciplinary committee of the Chambre de la sécurité financière after the date of the debtor's bankruptcy constitute a provable claim pursuant to section 121(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA")?

Introduction

On November 16, 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (“MGCS”) posted the Fall 2016 report (the “Report”)[1] of the Business Law Advisory Council (the ”Council”), which was formed by the MGCS in March 2016 to put forward recommendations for modernizing Ontario’s corporate and commercial statutes.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia made an order that the funds in a Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) could not be seized by the Trustee-in-Bankruptcy of the bankrupt beneficiary to satisfy the claims of creditors.

The tension between a trustee seeking to facilitate a proposal for the benefit of all creditors and a single creditor being forced to release its rights for the “greater good” was front and center in a recent case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Facts: The appellants were brothers who had incorporated a company (the “Corporation”) which was, in January 2008, involuntarily dissolved for failure to file corporate tax returns as required. In 2014, the minister issued an assessment under section 160 Notice of Assessment against the appellants.