With the growing concern over the environmental impacts of commercial activity, provinces have enacted and expanded environmental legislation in order to hold companies accountable for the costs of remediating the environmental harm they cause. However, regulators have struggled with how to hold companies accountable for environmental harm when they become insolvent. For many years, clean-up obligations have been treated as unsecured claims lacking priority over secured claims. On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court o

The Defendant was a dentist who had executed a personal guarantee on July 7, 2011 in favour of the Plaintiff (the "Bank") in order to secure payment of the indebtedness of the Defendant's professional corporation. The Bank made a demand for payment on the guarantee, and subsequently brought an action against the Defendant (the "First Action").The Bank was successful on a motion for summary judgment and judgment was granted against the Defendant.

With the growing concern over the environmental impacts of commercial activity, provinces have enacted and expanded environmental legislation in order to hold companies accountable for the costs of remediating the environmental harm they cause. However, regulators have struggled with how to hold companies accountable for environmental harm when they become insolvent. For many years, clean-up obligations have been treated as unsecured claims lacking priority over secured claims.

In a decision handed down on January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court ordered that a bankrupt oil and gas company fulfil its obligation to reclaim abandoned oil wells before paying any creditors. This decision has since sparked conflicting reactions across the country: first, because it gives clear precedence to environmental protection in the event of bankruptcy, and second, because of the influence it will likely have over business decisions in industries where environmental risks are involved.

1. Introduction

In the recent landmark decision of The Guarantee Company of North America v.

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada decided, in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., that a provincial regulator, in this case the Alberta Energy Regulator (the “AER”), can enforce end-of-life obligations with respect to oil wells, pipelines and other provincially regulated facilities belonging to a bankrupt company or its trustee in bankruptcy, even if the enforcement orders adversely affect the assets in the bankrupt’s estate and its secured creditors.

Le 31 janvier 2019, dans l’affaire Orphan Well Association c. Grant Thornton ltée., la Cour suprême du Canada (« CSC ») a décidé qu’un organisme de réglementation provinciale, en l’espèce l’Alberta Energy Regulator (« AER »), peut exiger le respect des obligations de fin de vie de puits, pipelines et autres installations assujetties aux règlements provinciaux d’une société en faillite ou de son syndic, même si les ordonnances de l’AER causent un préjudice à l’actif du créancier ou aux créanciers garantis.

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., popularly known as Redwater. In a 5-2 split decision, a majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (AER/Regulator) assertion of its statutory enforcement powers over an insolvent licensee’s assets does not create a conflict with the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) as to trigger the constitutional doctrine of federal paramountcy.

On February 1, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its highly anticipated decision in the Orphan Well Association, et al. v. Grant Thornton Limited, et al, 2019 SCC 5 (Redwater).