In Re Proex Logistics, 2025 ONSC 51, Justice Steele of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) recently made a number of holdings related to the process for trustees accepting claims in a bankruptcy and other parties seeking to challenge those decisions. The Court held that:

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the Court determined that while disgorgement orders made by the British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”) survive bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), administrative penalties may not.

On September 4, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in the sentence appeal in R. v. Metron Construction Corporation¹ (“Metron”). Government prosecutors had appealed against the C$200,000 fine Metron received on July 13, 2012, after the company pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal negligence causing death.

Background
Whose fault was it?
Comment

Introduction
Summary
Facts
Supreme Court decision
Comment

Introduction

Introduction
Implications
Facts
Supreme Court decision
Comment

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) recently released its much-anticipated decision in the Indalex Limited (“Indalex”) proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA Proceedings”). The decision is important for secured lenders in the context of an insolvency proceeding (“DIP Lenders”) or outside of an insolvency proceeding (“secured lenders”).

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in the landmark pension/insolvency case, Sun Indalex, LLC v. United Steelworkers. 

Introduction
Facts
Decision
Dissenting decisions
Comment

Introduction