A. THE PROBLEM

Many charities and associations have cash flow challenges, particularly in the current economic situation. They usually budget to break even financially. If some funding does not materialize as expected, they may be forced to close down. Their directors may be at financial risk as a result.

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").

On 15 August 2008, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released its reasons for judgment in Cliffs Over Maple Bay Investments Ltd. v. Fisgard Capital Corp. (CA036261). Tysoe J.A., for the court, said that a CCAA stay of proceedings “should not be granted or continued if the debtor company does not intend to propose a compromise or arrangement to its creditors.” CCAA filings designed to permit a debtor company to carry on business and to run a sales process for the sale of all or a substantial portion of the debtor company’s business is relatively common.

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada on October 24, 2008. The decision provides welcome clarification concerning the nature of government licenses and confirms that at least certain kinds of licenses constitute property for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and for the purposes of Canadian personal property security legislation. The decision is also important because it takes a purposive and commercial approach to the interpretation of bankruptcy and personal property security legislation.

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 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")

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 Re Norame Inc. (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 303(Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal was again called upon to consider various issues of importance to insolvency practitioners. In a decision released on April 28, 2008, Mr. Justice LaForme delivered the judgment for the Court of Appeal and in so doing dismissed the appeal of Paddon + Yorke Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Norame Inc. (the "Trustee").

Ontario Courts are routinely faced with requests for Approval and Vesting Orders in connection with asset acquisitions made in the context of receivership proceedings or proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA"). Purchasers’ counsel who routinely seek these Orders for their clients seek to insulate their clients from claims made by third parties arising from the purchasers’ acquisition of the assets through the insolvency proceedings.