This article was initially published in The Bond Buyer and is part of a larger piece that will be published in April in the Journal of Bankruptcy.
Introduction
A recent decision of the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (OPC) highlights the potentially broad application of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA).1
In a changing economy, companies are constantly facing new challenges, and none are immune to insolvent suppliers or clients.
It is therefore crucial to be able to identify the early warning signs of a company's insolvency and to be aware of the issues that can arise when a client or a supplier becomes insolvent.
When Insolvency Looms on the Horizon
What do a car crash in Alberta, a delinquent farm mortgage in Saskatchewan and an unpaid highway toll ticket in Ontario have in common?
They all ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
35820 Alberta (Attorney General) v. Moloney
Constitutional law — Division of powers — Federal paramountcy — Bankruptcy and insolvency
Appeal from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (2014 ABCA 68), affirming a decision of Moen J. (2012 ABQB 644).
A recent court ruling is a good reminder to health care providers that bankruptcy may not (as is sometimes suggested) be a safe harbor for providers in danger of being forced out of business by the loss of their Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements.
Following the lead of the Illinois Supreme Court in In re Pension Reform Litigation, 2015 IL 118585 [see Illinois and New Jersey Pension Decisions: Implications for Bondholders], Judge Rita Novak of the Circuit Court of Cook County has ruled that an Illinois law modifying provisions of Chicago’s pension statute violated the Illinois Constitution.
In Paul L. Schnier v. Her Majesty the Queen,[1] the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) dismissed a motion to quash an appeal brought on the basis that the appellant did not, as an undischarged bankrupt, have the capacity, pursuant to Section 71 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, to deal with property, including the ability to bring an appeal. The Appellant believed he was required to file the appeal, but did not obtain the trustee in bankruptcy’s permission when he commenced the appeal.