In the recent decision of Re Rieger Printing Ink Co., Justice Pepall of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) considered the right to protection against selfincrimination in a Section 163 examination conducted under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA").

A “pre-packaged sale”, or “pre-pack”, is an arrangement under which the sale of all or part of a company’s business or assets is negotiated with a purchaser prior to the appointment of an administrator, and effected shortly (perhaps immediately) after appointment. The administrator effects the sale without the business being offered to the open market.

With the economy in poor shape and personal debt still at high levels, the outlook is less than rosy for people who are facing insolvency. Even after the changes made by the Enterprise Act 2002, bankruptcy is still a difficult experience. This is especially true where the family home is the main asset of the bankrupt’s estate.

The trustee in bankruptcy will normally seek a possession order over the property so that it can be sold to satisfy the claims of creditors.

When deciding whether the possession order is to be granted, the court is obliged to consider:

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada on October 24, 2008. The decision provides welcome clarification concerning the nature of government licenses and confirms that at least certain kinds of licenses constitute property for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and for the purposes of Canadian personal property security legislation. The decision is also important because it takes a purposive and commercial approach to the interpretation of bankruptcy and personal property security legislation.

On 15 August 2008, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released its reasons for judgment in Cliffs Over Maple Bay Investments Ltd. v. Fisgard Capital Corp. (CA036261). Tysoe J.A., for the court, said that a CCAA stay of proceedings “should not be granted or continued if the debtor company does not intend to propose a compromise or arrangement to its creditors.” CCAA filings designed to permit a debtor company to carry on business and to run a sales process for the sale of all or a substantial portion of the debtor company’s business is relatively common.

In Re Norame Inc. (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 303(Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal was again called upon to consider various issues of importance to insolvency practitioners. In a decision released on April 28, 2008, Mr. Justice LaForme delivered the judgment for the Court of Appeal and in so doing dismissed the appeal of Paddon + Yorke Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Norame Inc. (the "Trustee").

In the recent decision of Re WorkGroup Designs Inc.,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the "BIA") which relate to valuing and determining the claims of secured creditors in proposal proceedings under the BIA.

Background

On July 7, 2008, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the "WEPPA") was proclaimed into force, along with complementary amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") and other related statutes. The new program protects a limited amount of the unpaid wages of employees when an employer becomes bankrupt or is placed into receivership, and the amendments to the BIA provide for the priority of some un-remitted pension contributions.

The Wage Earner Protection Program (the "WEPP")

On July 23, 2008, the Canadian Government proclaimed into force amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") that provide super-priority security to claims, subject to specified limits, for unpaid wages ("Unpaid Wage Claims") and unpaid pension plan contributions ("Unpaid Pension Contribution Claims") in a bankruptcy or receivership proceeding, effective as of July 7, 2008.

When a person is unable to pursue a claim against someone who has been made bankrupt on account of the bankruptcy having been discharged, it may still be possible to pursue the claim against the bankrupt’s insurers, following a recent ruling.

The case involved 12 claims for breach of trust against nine solicitors and a Mr Dixit Shah. It was brought by the Law Society and 19 of the various clients of the solicitors.