On July 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal from the Order of a bankruptcy judge in Sirius Concrete Inc. (Re), 2022 ONCA 524 (Sirius), which ruled that certain funds paid by a trade creditor formed part of the bankrupt’s estate. The issue on appeal was whether a constructive trust should be imposed over certain funds due to a claim of unjust enrichment arising from alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made by the bankrupt on the eve of its bankruptcy filing.
Part 1
Without question, the top story over the last year has been the COVID-19 pandemic and its tremendous ongoing effects felt across Canada and the world.
This time has had a significant impact on Canada’s energy industry and many of the changes and developments that took place in 2020 will continue to influence trends, business decisions and the future growth of Canada’s energy industry in 2021.
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
In Royal Bank of Canada v. A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. the Court was asked to determine the priority of claims in a bankruptcy between Royal Bank of Canada (the "Bank"), a secured creditor of the bankrupt, A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. ("A-1") and The Guarantee Company of North America (the "GCNA") a bond company that paid out 20 lien claims and was subrogated to those rights under the Construction Lien Act ("CLA").
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 recently released Judgment in Bank of Montreal v. Peri Formwork Systems Inc.1, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was called upon to decide whether a Monitor, under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”)2, or a Receiver, under the Builders Lien Act 3, could borrow monies to complete a development project in priority to claims of builder’s liens registered against the project.
In theMatter of Forest and Marine Financial Corporation (2009) BCCA 319, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was called upon to consider whether a limited partnership qualifies for protection under the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The Court also considered whether, in the circumstances of the case, a stay of proceedings should have been issued with respect to the limited partnership.
This is part three of a series focusing on current M&A trends, opportunities and challenges
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