Intellectual property rights are meant to protect that which cannot be easily protected: ideas, images, music and brands. The creators of these intangible concepts are given an economic monopoly over them, in the hopes of fostering greater creativity and economic growth. Bankruptcy law, on the other hand, seeks to equitably distribute the property of the bankrupt among its creditors, subject to the rights of secured creditors. There is an inherent conflict between the rights of two groups.
On October 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal of Quebec rendered an important judgment in the matter of the bankruptcy of Sylvain Girard (500-09-024077-133), which will have a decisive impact in the handling of bankruptcy cases involving the tax authorities, namely the Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”) and the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”).
Introduction
A bankruptcy discharge hearing is the forum for the Court’s determination of a bankrupt’s application for discharge which has been opposed by one or more of: a creditor, the Trustee, or the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. This paper will aim to provide practical advice on preparing for and arguing an opposed discharge, whether from the perspective of the bankrupt, an opposing creditor, or the Trustee.1
Discharge
Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act1, trustees have considerable discretion to administer a bankrupt’s estate in an expedient manner. However, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently confirmed that trustees must exercise such discretion within the limits of relevant statutory provisions and common law principles.
This article has been contributed to the blog by Caitlin Fell and Sean Stidwill. Caitlin Fell is an associate in the insolvency and restructuring group of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP and Sean Stidwill is a summer student at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.
On September 4, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a taxpayer's application for leave to appeal in the matter of Rita Congiu et autre c. Agence du revenu du Québec et autre(35830/35833).
Original Newsletter(s) this article was published in: Commercial Litigation Update: October 2014
The doctrine of federal paramountcy provides that where there is an inconsistency between validly enacted but overlapping provincial and federal legislation, the provincial legislation is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency and the remainder of the provincial legislation is unaffected.
What you need to know
The entry of the Cape Town Convention into force under Canadian law is a positive step, but has led to a legislative “black hole” in the protection provided to certain aviation creditors, bringing with it considerable uncertainty and potentially expensive ramifications.
The Cape Town Convention in Canada