A recent decision of Justice Watt of the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively answers 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 Courts of Justice Act (the “CJA”). Justice Watt’s decision in Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd.

Secured creditors can breathe a sigh of relief. We have received word that the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed the appeal from the bench in Canada v. Callidus Capital Corporation (“Callidus”).

Encrypted digital currencies (“cryptocurrencies”),1 particularly Bitcoin, have recently become the target of enormous international speculation and market scrutiny. Some expect cryptocurrency payments and other transactions tracked via distributed ledger technology (“DLT”, of which “blockchain” technology is one example) to be the future of commercial interaction. The theory is that cryptocurrencies could become “the holy grail of commerce – a payment system that would eliminate or minimize the roles of third party intermediaries.”2

An equipment finance company finances the purchase of a truck and registers a purchase-money security interest (a “PMSI”) pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the “PPSA”) to protect its interest. The truck breaks down and is taken in for repairs. While the truck is in the shop, the debtor defaults under its lending arrangements with the equipment finance company.

Back in October 2017, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (“PAP”) was launched to very little fanfare. PAP is part of the Civil Procedure Rules which govern how parties deal with litigation claims through the County Court and is the first time that strict rules have been put in place for pre-action conduct on a debt matter. I wrote an article about PAP at the time to explain the ins and outs of it.

Much has already been said about the demise of Carillion and the impact of its liquidation on the various parties with whom it contracted. In this article, I would like to examine what light the demise of Carillion throws on themes commonly encountered within insolvency and whether there are lessons to be learned for everyone.

Having read the various reports in the press, it is clear that whilst Carillion entered into multi-billion pound government contracts, the contracts had extremely small profit margins, ultimately rendering the business unsustainable.

In a January 31, 2018 decision from the bench in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada v. A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. (Court File No. CV-14-10784-00CL) (“A-1 Asphalt”), Madam Justice Conway of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) held that the deemed trust provisions of subsection 8(1)(a) of the Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) were not, on their own, sufficient to create a trust recognized in a contractor’s bankruptcy or proposal proceedings.

Until a court orders otherwise, a monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act is a neutral party and may not take sides in favour of one stakeholder over another.

Secured creditors have taken note and expressed concern regarding a recent decision from the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”), which has upended conventional wisdom regarding the priority and treatment of GST/HST arrears in a bankruptcy. In Canada v.

In a September 19, 2017 decision from the bench in the matter of Bank of Montreal v. Kappeler Masonry Corporation, et. al.1 (“Kappeler Masonry”), Madam Justice Conway of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) confirmed that commingling of construction project receipts in a receiver’s estate account is fatal to a Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) trust claim in the face of a debtor’s bankruptcy.