The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently permitted a debtor to establish a "hardship" fund to pay obligations incurred prior to the debtor's CCAA filing to local suppliers operating in the debtor’s community.

The Wage Earner Protection Program Act, S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the “WEPPA”), came into force on July 7, 2008. This paper will set out the implications of the WEPPA on insolvency practice and provide a brief analysis of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and 383838 B.C. Ltd. (Re), 2009 BCSC 41 (“LeRoy Trucking”), the only reported decision regarding the WEPPA (as at the date of this paper) since the legislation came into force.

I. Introduction to the WEPPA

Magna Enterprises Corp. (“MEC”), a foreign bankrupt corporation, brought an application for ancillary relief pursuant to s. 18.6 of the CCAA. Section 18.6 gives the court the power to “make such orders and grant such relief as it considers appropriate to facilitate, approve or implement arrangements that will result in a co-ordination of proceedings under this Act with any foreign proceeding”.

Retention of key employees is a primary concern of any company that is seeking to survive a restructuring process as a viable operating business. The question is how to ensure that employee retention payments fairly balance the goal of retaining employees who are key to the restructuring against the financial impact on other stakeholders of the implementation of such a program. Beyond that, in the case of a cross-border restructuring, one must be aware of the difference between Canadian and US law on the issue of employee retention.  

Canada’s insolvency and restructuring regime consists primarily of two separate statutes that have been substantially amended in recent years to align their restructuring provisions. Despite some similarities with its U.S. counterpart, the amended Canadian regime remains distinct.

In Re: IC Creative Homes Inc. (2005) Carswell BC 3157 (Master) the Bankruptcy Court had previously granted an order under section 38 of the BIA allowing a creditor of the bankrupt to commence proceedings against the bankrupt’s accounting and business advisor for alleged misconduct and negligence relating to the operations of the bankrupt prior to its bankruptcy.

In the recent decision of Re Rieger Printing Ink Co., Justice Pepall of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) considered the right to protection against selfincrimination in a Section 163 examination conducted under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA").

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada1 ("Saulnier"), an important case involving fishing licences in the context of a secured lending transaction and an assignment in bankruptcy. This case contains what we believe is significant commentary on classifying certain governmental licences as "property" under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") and "personal property" under the Personal Property Security Act (Nova Scotia) (the "Nova Scotia PPSA").

In Re EarthFirst Canada Inc., Justice Romaine had to consider establishing a “hardship fund” that would be used to allow EarthFirst Canada Inc. (“EarthFirst”) to pay pre-filing obligations owing to certain suppliers and contractors operating in a remote community where EarthFirst is developing a wind farm project.

Section 81.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) grants a temporary super priority to suppliers who provided goods to a bankrupt purchaser or where a receiver has been appointed in relation to the purchaser. The section requires the supplier to provide a written demand to the purchaser and allows the supplier to repossess the goods within thirty days of the date of the delivery of goods.