On July 31, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its decision in Ridel v. Goldberg, clarifying the interplay of the various provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 at play in circumstances where judgment creditors are allowed to take proceedings in their own name pursuant to an order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Facts

Vesting orders have become one of the most powerful tools in an insolvency professional’s toolkit, providing a purchaser with the comfort that the encumbrances contributing to the debtor’s financial difficulties cannot follow to the new owner. In light of their importance, Canadian insolvency and banking professionals were understandably anxious when the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA” or the “Court”) recently asked for submissions on whether receivership vesting orders can extinguish third party interests in land in the nature of a Gross Overriding Royalty (a “GOR”).1

In an April 30, 2019 endorsement accompanying a receivership order made in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada and D.M. Robichaud Associates Ltd. (“D.M. Robichaud”), Justice Hainey of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List (the “Court”) held that the receiver’s charge and the receiver’s borrowings charge should have priority over deemed trusts under provincial construction legislation.1

In January, we wrote about a decision of Justice Watt of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which addressed the question of which appeal procedure must be followed in appeals of Orders made in proceedings constituted under both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the

In the recent decision of Edmonton (City) v Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc., 2019 ABCA 109, the Alberta Court of Appeal has concluded that fees and costs incurred by a court-appointed receiver should have priority over all claims by secured creditors, including special liens in favour of municipalities for unpaid property taxes. This is an important decision for the insolvency bar and provides some much needed comfort to receivers that their fees and costs will be protected by the court-ordered charge.

The Decision

The Defendant was a dentist who had executed a personal guarantee on July 7, 2011 in favour of the Plaintiff (the "Bank") in order to secure payment of the indebtedness of the Defendant's professional corporation. The Bank made a demand for payment on the guarantee, and subsequently brought an action against the Defendant (the "First Action").The Bank was successful on a motion for summary judgment and judgment was granted against the Defendant.

Background

Virginia Hills Oil Corp. was a small publicly traded oil producer with assets in north central Alberta. Some of its assets were held through its subsidiary Dolomite Energy Inc. (collectively the "Debtors"). The Debtors' main secured creditors were the Alberta Treasury Branches and the Bank of Nova Scotia (the "Banks"). The Debtors also owned a pipeline that passed through three municipalities (the "Municipalities").

In the recent landmark decision of The Guarantee Company of North America v.

​In Jaycap Financial Ltd v Snowdon Block Inc, 2019 ABCA 47 [Jaycap], the Alberta Court of Appeal recently reminded Receivers that they have a duty to be transparent and provide the Court with evidence to meet the burden of proof to the requisite standard for each application it brings.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd.