In the recent decision of Re WorkGroup Designs Inc.,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the "BIA") which relate to valuing and determining the claims of secured creditors in proposal proceedings under the BIA.
Background
In Walchuk v. Houghton, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the stay of all proceedings against a bankrupt pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act applies to a contempt motion brought by a judgment creditor where the contempt arises after the bankruptcy.
On July 7, 2008, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the "WEPPA") was proclaimed into force, along with complementary amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") and other related statutes. The new program protects a limited amount of the unpaid wages of employees when an employer becomes bankrupt or is placed into receivership, and the amendments to the BIA provide for the priority of some un-remitted pension contributions.
The Wage Earner Protection Program (the "WEPP")
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has released its highly anticipated decision in Redwater Energy Corporation (Re), 2016 ABQB 278 (“Redwater”).
On July 23, 2008, the Canadian Government proclaimed into force amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") that provide super-priority security to claims, subject to specified limits, for unpaid wages ("Unpaid Wage Claims") and unpaid pension plan contributions ("Unpaid Pension Contribution Claims") in a bankruptcy or receivership proceeding, effective as of July 7, 2008.
On November 1, 2019, amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act,R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (BIA) and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (CCAA) came into force. Among other changes described in our previous publication, these amendments expand the protection offered to intellectual property (IP) licensees in the event that the licensor enters insolvency.
This Fall the Alberta Surface Rights Board (the “Board”) Panel issued its decision in Lemke v Petroglobe Inc, 2015 ABSRB 740. The Panel decided that it did not have authority to proceed with a claim by a landowner for unpaid compensation that had accrued before the date that the operator was assigned into bankruptcy.
On July 31, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its decision in Ridel v. Goldberg, clarifying the interplay of the various provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 at play in circumstances where judgment creditors are allowed to take proceedings in their own name pursuant to an order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The Facts
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.
In the recent decision of Edmonton (City) v Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc., 2019 ABCA 109, the Alberta Court of Appeal has concluded that fees and costs incurred by a court-appointed receiver should have priority over all claims by secured creditors, including special liens in favour of municipalities for unpaid property taxes. This is an important decision for the insolvency bar and provides some much needed comfort to receivers that their fees and costs will be protected by the court-ordered charge.
The Decision