Years after an insolvency proceeding is closed, can a solvent co-lessee/working interest participant (WIP) still be on the hook for their former partner’s share of unpaid Crown royalties? A recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision to allow an appeal in Spartan Delta Corp v Alberta (Energy and Minerals), 2025 ABCA 181 [Spartan Delta], raises concerns around whether the answer to such question can be 'yes'.

Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is designed to give “honest, but unfortunate debtors” a “fresh start” by automatically staying litigation and dealing with the bankrupt’s debts and liabilities in an orderly fashion. But what if the bankrupt was dishonest? Should they be entitled to have litigation stayed and their debts discharged? The BIA contains tools to address this.

Insolvency and Restructuring Bulletin

The general rule in bankruptcy is that a debtor receives a “fresh start” and is discharged from prior debts, but this is subject to certain exceptions. Subsection 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) sets out eight classes of debts that are not released by an order of discharge including an exception for debts that arise out of fraud. In Poonian v.

On March 11, 2024, the Minister of Affordability and Utilities (MUA)

On March 11, 2024, the Alberta Government released two Regulations: the Market Power Mitigation Regulation (MPM Regulation) and the Supply Cushion Regulation (the Supply Cushion Regulat

On December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal of Poonian v British Columbia Securities Commission, 2022 B

In a recent case involving Mantle Materials Group, Ltd. (2023 ABKB 488, “Mantle“), the intersection of environmental obligations and insolvency law in Canada has again come into sharp focus.

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (the Court) recently revisited the stringent boundaries on the types of claims that can be brought against court-appointed officers. The decision in North v Davison, 2024 ABKB 242 (the Decision) highlighted the protective measures that courts employ to safeguard the integrity and function of receivership proceedings against unfounded or speculative claims. In the Decision, the Court struck down a counterclaim against Ernst & Young Inc.

Just over a year ago, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ACKB”) decision in Qualex-Landmark Towers v 12-10 Capital Corp (“Qualex”)[1] extended the application of an environmental regulator’s priority entitlements in bankruptcy and insolvency to civ