36153 Ryan Glenn Ziegler v. Her Majesty the Queen (Criminal law – Dangerous offender)

doing business in Canada 2 | doing business in Canada Canada is one of the world’s premier locations for business investment. Boasting an exceptional wealth of natural resources, a sound financial system and world-class infrastructure, Canada is known for innovation in a wide range of sectors. And with generous research and development incentives, low corporate tax rates, and easy access to major U.S. markets, Canada is a top destination for foreign companies seeking a foothold in North America.

I.  Introduction

Pan Canadian Mortgage Group v. 679972 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1078 (Pan Canadian), addresses the nature and priority of a purchaser’s lien, which, in general terms, is a financial charge that results when a purchaser pays a deposit toward the purchase price under a contract of purchase and sale.

On November 28, 2013, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published its draft guideline entitled Liquidity Adequacy Requirements¹ which set out the new liquidity requirements that may eventually apply to federal deposit-taking institutions, that is, the banks, bank holding compan

A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Tallgrass¹⁰ clarifies the threshold that a company must meet when it seeks relief pursuant to the CCAA¹¹, particularly when such an application is met with a competing applicati

If Peter Morton and Cinitel Corp. had their way, every lender would have a distinct duty to a guarantor to permit the sale of a defaulting borrower’s assets as a going concern. In their view, a lender should be required to maximize its recovery from the borrower and to minimize any claim made on a guarantee. Fulfilling that duty would also obligate a lender to keep funding a borrower while that asset sale was negotiated and completed. It is enough to make any lender cringe.

Fortunately, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Morton and Cinitel’s view of the lending world.

In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek ⁷ where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision that has implications for borrowers and lenders alike, particularly where pension funds are involved, has raised some new hurdles for the country’s banks and their business customers and, at the same time, has bolstered protection for lenders of last resort who finance insolvent companies.

The court’s decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, issued earlier this year, addresses critical questions in insolvency law regarding pension funds and DIP financing. 

The Court of Appeal for Ontario's (the "OCA") decision in Re Indalex Ltd.¹ was decried by professionals in pension, banking and insolvency practices. On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC" or the "Court") overturned the OCA's decision.