Factoring is a common way for businesses to monetize current assets. Typically, in a factoring transaction, an enterprise sells its accounts receivable to a third party (commonly a bank, but not always), which, in exchange for a discount on the value of the receivables, takes on the effort and time commitment related to collecting the accounts.
The recent decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) in 306440 Ontario Ltd. v. 782127 Ontario Ltd.1 serves as a cautionary reminder to secured creditors that their position may not always be at the top of the insolvency food chain, even when they have taken all the proper steps to perfect their security interests.
In this two part guide we will be looking at issues that frequently arise when considering whether a professional indemnity policy responds to a claim against a construction professional.
In Part 1 we consider whether there is cover. In particular:
- Prior claims – when will a “new” claim fall within an existing notification?
- The obligation to notify circumstances
- Aggregation
- Insolvency of the Insured
Prior claims
On December 1, 2014, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court of Appeal”) released its decision, written for the Court of Appeal by Madam Justice Pepall, in Bank of Nova Scotia v. Diemer, 2014 ONCA 851 (“Diemer”). The Court of Appeal dismissed the court-appointed receiver’s (the “Receiver”) appeal of the order of Justice Goodman, which, among other things, reduced the fees of counsel (“Counsel”) to the Receiver.
Earlier this year, the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) published its consultation on the second PPF Levy Triennium (2015/16 to 2017/18) which proposed wholesale changes to the measure of insolvency risk and significant changes in respect of contingent assets and the PPF’s treatment of asset-backed contributions.
As we await the outcome of the consultation, employers and trustees may find a summary of the proposals helpful in trying to gauge how they could impact their scheme’s PPF levy.
The PPF-specific insolvency risk model
Bankruptcy and insolvency professionals should take note of two recent Ontario Superior Court decisions that put professional fees in the spotlight. TNG Acquisition Inc. (Re), 2014 ONSC 2754 [Commercial List] (“TNG Acquisition”) and Bank of Nova Scotia v. Diemer, 2014 ONSC 365 (“Diemer”), saw Brown J. and Goodman J., respectively, reduce fees for court-appointed officers and their legal counsel on the basis that the amounts sought were unreasonable in consideration of the work performed.
In its June 11, 2014 decision in Iona Contractors Ltd. (Re), 2014 ABQB 347 (“Iona Contractors”), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (the “Alberta QB”) held that the trust created by section 22 of the Builders’ Lien Act (Alberta) is not effective in the bankruptcy of a would-be trustee debtor. This result is consistent with, but reached completely independently of, the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Atlas Block Co.
In his recent decision inRoyal Bank of Canada v.Atlas Block Co. Limited, 2014 ONSC 3062 (“Atlas Block”), Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) held that trust claims pursuant to section 8 of the Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) do not survive the bankruptcy of the would-be trustee debtor.
On December 19, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “RMV”) cannot deny vehicle permits to individuals on account of pre- bankruptcy debts owing to the ETR Concession Company Limited (the “ETR”). Based on the intent and purpose of federal bankruptcy law to permit debtors to obtain a “fresh start,” it was concluded that the provincial act establishing the ETR conflicts with bankruptcy law and was, as a result, unconstitutional in part.
Background
Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Game it is necessary to consider the effect of the court’s decision on the treatment of rents in administration and by analogy liquidation – and the potential consequences of that change.
What types of insolvency does the decision affect?
The Court of Appeal’s decision explicitly states that it is applicable as to the treatment of rents in both administration and liquidation.
What about existing cases?