The Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (the “Convention”) and theProtocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters specific to Aircraft Equipment (the “Protocol” collectively with the Convention, the “Cape Town Convention”) signed on November 16, 2001 establish a special regime for the protection of certain interests in aircraft objects (within the meaning given to such term in the Cape Town Convention, an “Aircraft Object”), and

Trust claims against a borrower’s assets are something that no secured creditor wants to be confronted with. Such claims are often unexpected because they are, for the most part, undetectable. They lurk in the shadows, out of the reach of traditional due diligence measures and PPSA searches. As a result, even the most prudent of creditors can sometimes find themselves facing these undocumented and unquantifiable claims.

A recent Alberta case1 has addressed the proposed use of a plan of arrangement under theCanada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”) where proceedings under insolvency statutes may be more appropriate.  In Connacher Oil, Connacher Oil and Gas Limited (“Connacher”) and 9171665 Canada Ltd.

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

Secured creditors should take note of Callidus,¹ wherein the Federal Court (the “Court”) held that the bankruptcy of a tax debtor rendered a statutory deemed trust under section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”) ineffective as against a secured creditor who, prior to the bankruptcy, received proceeds from the tax debtor’s assets.

Background

In Aventura², a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”), the Honourable Justice Penny confirmed that a bankruptcy trustee does not have the authority, pursuant to section 30(1)(k) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), to disclaim a lease on behalf of a bankrupt landlord. Rather, a trustee’s authority to disclaim a lease is limited to situations where the bankrupt is the tenant.

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).

On October 13, 2015, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) dismissed the so-called “interest stops rule” appeal in the Nortel matter,^[1] thereby confirming that the rule applies in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). The Court’s decision also appears to eliminate any suggestion that the rule only applies to so-called “liquidating” CCAA proceedings.