Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 21, 2022.

Areas of law covered in the cases this week included bankruptcy and insolvency (setting aside discharge from bankruptcy and after-acquired property), municipal liability for building inspections, two child protection decisions, guarantees and a partnership dispute.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Restrictions on the issuing of statutory demands and winding-up petitions are due to come to an end at the end of the month having first been implemented by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) in March 2020.

As of 1 April 2022, the restrictions will cease to apply and creditors will be free once again to issue winding-up petitions against debtors who are unable to pay sums owed.

The case of Re Premier FX Limited (in Liquidation) highlights the potentially dire consequences for a creditor who does not file their proof of debt by a set deadline - and makes clear that mistakenly forgetting to do so is not a sufficient excuse.

Premier FX was in business as a foreign exchange dealer and money transfer agent. Financial advice was sought when it became clear to the (newly appointed) directors that the claims received from customers exceed the balance of the funds held by the company.

Good afternoon.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 14, 2022.

Topics covered this week included property of a bankrupt (beneficial interest in trust property), testamentary capacity and extensions of time to perfect appeals.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Good evening.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 7, 2022.

In Ernst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the court upheld the application judge’s decision to grant the orders the Bondfield monitor and trustee in bankruptcy requiring payments made at undervalue to be repaid.  In coming to its decision, the Court applied the corporate attribution doctrine.

A pizza boss has been handed an eight-year director disqualification for failing to maintain adequate records to explain how a £50,000 bounceback loan was used.

R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court [2021] EWHC 3013

The case of Palmer has confirmed that an insolvency practitioner in the role of an administrator can be prosecuted (and therefore personally liable) for a failure to follow correct redundancy procedures prescribed by s194 TULRCA.

Where an individual is found to have acted in breach of s194, they may be personally liable to an unlimited fine (or a fine of up to £5,000 if the offence is committed before 12 March 2015).

The facts

Part 1 of this article considered some of the checks and balances that apply when seeking access to one of the law’s most potent weapons, including the tests the applicant must satisfy, and exceptions that are commonly included in the order made by the court (see ‘Freezing orders: policing the nuclear option (Pt 1)’, NLJ, 7 & 14 January 2022, p15).

Despite calls upon the government to intervene and, later, attempts to sell the business, the South West construction firm Midas has collapsed into administration this week.

The collapse of the business has led to over 300 redundancies, though it is understood that a section of the business (Mi-Space) has been sold, saving over 50 jobs. Concerns have also been raised about the knock-on effort on sub-contractors and connected businesses, many of whom have been left out of pocket through unfulfilled contracts and unpaid invoices.

When the availability of bounceback loans was announced, it was heralded as the way for small businesses to quickly and easily access loans of between £2,000 and £50,000 during the COVID pandemic. Undoubtedly, it has helped a significant number of small businesses to weather the storm that COVID brought on many.