On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Montréal (City) v.

IN THE NEWS

Government lifts (in part) the temporary insolvency measures

On 9 September 2021, the government announced that the temporary restrictions introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) which were put in place to protect companies during the pandemic are being lifted, and will be replaced from 1 October 2021 with new temporary measures, which include the introduction of a temporary revised debt limit for presenting winding up petitions.

What have we been up to?

Aside from our collective (but not wholly unexpected) disappointment that the lifting of the remaining Covid restrictions has been pushed back to 19 July, the team continue to advise on a wide range of insolvency related matters, amongst the recent highlights being:

From 1 October 2021, those restrictions will be replaced by new measures brought about under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10 Regulations 2021) (the “Regulations”).

Under the Regulations, which are to be temporary and due to last until 31 March 2022, a creditor will be able to present a winding up petition against a corporate debtor where:-

(i) The debt is for a liquidated amount, which has fallen due and is not an ‘excluded debt’ (see below) (Condition A)

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 Government has announced that it will be bringing an end (of sorts) to the temporary restrictions surrounding a creditor’s ability to present a statutory demand and winding up petition against a corporate debtor. Those restrictions, which were introduced under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 in a response to the Covid 19 pandemic, have been in place since June 2020 and were set to expire on 30 September 2021.

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”).

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”).

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, provincial emergency orders required the majority of businesses to migrate their workforce to a work-from-home environment. As the pandemic has persisted, what was originally a short-term solution for many businesses, has led many of them to reconsider their current and future need for office space. For those businesses tied into long-term leases, many have turned to subleasing all or a portion of their space as a way to reduce their overhead.