The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released its decision with respect to the appeal of Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Vanquish Oil and Gas Corporation and has rekindled discussion as to the risks associated with an Operator’s right to commingle his own general funds with trust funds held for the benefit of Joint Operators.

Facts

TD Bank v. Dunn-Rite Cattle Corp. [2009] A.W.L.D. 2075; 2009 ABQB 227 (Alta. Q.B.), on hearing of issue from (2006) 26 C.B.R. (5th) 1 (Alta. C.A.)

The master granted TD priority to the subject cattle ahead of the Dunns’ lien pursuant to the since repealed Livery Stable Keepers Act. The Dunns appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal and because of sparse evidence, directed the matter of priority be heard by the Court of Queen’s Bench.

Often, when creditors start to take action against a debtor, the debtor will seek relief through the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act(i). Some Trustees in bankruptcy even advertise that the bankruptcy process can be an important step on the road to “financial well being”. Creditors, upon receiving notice of their Debtor’s bankruptcy, may feel that the chance of any recovery all but disappears with the assignment into bankruptcy.

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently ruled on a case1 dealing with the priority of claims to the bank accounts of a petroleum operator which had gone into receivership, where the operatorship was governed by the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure. The operator had failed to pay to the non-operators revenues of approximately $300,000, having only $58,000 left in the commingled account. The Operating Procedure imposes a trust on the production revenues but also expressly allows intermingling of these funds with the operator's general funds.

Set-off is a powerful and often under-appreciated insolvency remedy in Canada. A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench highlighted the importance of the doctrine and examined the requirements for a claim of equitable set-off in the context of a corporate group.

The right to assert valid set-off claims is expressly preserved in Canadian insolvency legislation. The remedy applies such that creditors may set-off (or net-out) amounts owing to them by an insolvent party, against amounts otherwise payable by them to the insolvent party.

Unpaid suppliers are generally unsecured in liquidation proceedings. A supplier can elevate its unsecured claim by taking security from the debtor or modifying its supply contract by inserting an effective title retention clause. The supplier may also rely on the BIA unpaid supplier provision to assert a super-priority for the return of its goods.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently permitted a debtor to establish a "hardship" fund to pay obligations incurred prior to the debtor's CCAA filing to local suppliers operating in the debtor’s community.

Vanquish Oil & Gas (“Vanquish”), now in receivership, was a trustee under a joint operating agreement for an oil well. It was required to remit 45% of the well’s net production proceeds to a proportional owner - either Karl Oil and Gas Ltd. or Choice Resources Corporation (who disputed the entitlement at the time).

TrustIn Canada (Deputy Attorney General) v. Temple City Housing Inc., the Alberta Court of Appeal had to consider an application for leave to appeal a provision in a Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (“CCAA”) order granting a DIP lender a charge in priority over the claims of CRA. The claims of CRA consisted of deemed trust claims arising under sections 224(1.2), 227(4) and 227(4.1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada).

In Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v.