In April 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered a unanimous judgment in Re Indalex Limited which ordered that the amount the debtor was required to contribute towards its pension plan wind up deficiency be paid in higher priority to repayments to its DIP lender. This judgment was a surprise to the legal community. Leave to appeal has since been granted by the Supreme Court of Canada. In November 2011, groups of White Birch employees and retirees (referred to below as employees) filed motions seeking the application of the legal findings of Indalex to White Birch.

Lenders should be cognizant that the granting of security by a debtor may be subject to challenge as a fraudulent preference in the event the debtor subsequently files for liquidation or proposal proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the “BIA”) or restructuring proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the “CCAA”). Such risk arises if the debtor is insolvent the time the security was granted.

In the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Toronto-Dominion Bank and Her Majesty the Queen (2012 SCC 1), the Supreme Court succinctly agreed with the reasons of Justice Noël of the Federal Court of Appeal.

Lawrence Gold recently presented on abuses of the Repair and Storage Liens Act (Ontario) (“RSLA”) impacting commercial finance and insurance companies to the Ontario Personal Property Security Legislation Committee (“PPSL Committee”). As changes to the RSLA will likely not be implemented in the near future, concerns regarding abuse of lien claimant rights are of significant importance to the industry.

The common law has long recognized a secured creditor’s duty to provide reasonable notice to borrowers before enforcing its security and appointing a receiver. The practical importance of this has become less significant since the codification of the principle of reasonable notice in section 244 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). However, in the recent case of Bank of Montreal v.

In a recent edition of Fully Secured (September 29, 2011 – Volume 2, No. 3), the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Indalex Limited was discussed, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a statutory deemed trust claim arising out of a pension plan wind-up deficiency ranked in priority to debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing.

There have been several recent developments with respect to this decision since the date of that publication.

In a decision dated January 11, 2012, a New York court applied the “separate entity rule” to dismiss a judgment creditor’s special proceeding against a garnishee bank, confirming that the rule remains alive and well in New York.  Under the separate entity rule, bank branches are treated as separate legal entities for the purposes of attachment and garnishment.  Where the rule applies, a judgment creditor seeking to restrain a judgment debtor’s bank account must serve the post-judgment restraining notice upon the bank branch where the account is maintained.    

In a succinct decision rendered on January 12, the same day as the hearing, the Supreme Court of Canada finally settled the question of whether requirements to pay, issued pursuant to section 317 of the Excise Tax Act ("ETA") prior to the bankruptcy of a tax debtor, but not paid before such time, remain valid against the garnishee.1 Supreme Court Justice LeBel, speaking on behalf of the Court, simply stated that the Court agreed with the reasons of Noël J.A. of the Federal Court of Appeal.

Introduction

In “True Lease v. Security Lease – Is the Distinction Still Relevant?” which appeared in the June 2008 issue of Collateral Matters, Jill Fraser discussed a 2007 amendment to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the “PPSA”) and whether or not the distinction between a true lease and a security lease was still relevant in light of that amendment.

What role does business common sense play in the interpretation of commercial contracts? This issue was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Rainy Sky S.A. v. Kookmin Bank. The answer: “where a term of a contract is open to more than one interpretation, it is generally appropriate to adopt the interpretation which is most consistent with business common sense”. Since there is currently some uncertainty in Canada on the point, Rainy Sky is an important case to consider.

Decision