Upon the filing of an appeal of a bankruptcy order, that order is stayed pursuant to section 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). In Msi Spergel v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to decide whether that stay suspends the limitation period applicable to a motion by a trustee to set aside a preferential payment by a bankrupt under s. 95 of the BIA.

Directors and officers beware. Former directors and officers of bankrupt companies can now be found liable to pay clean-up costs for contaminated sites in Ontario, even if the contamination occurred before their tenure.

Thanks to a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia released on June 13, 2013, Court-appointed receivers can now accept appointments with greater confidence that their fees and expenses incurred in passing their accounts are recoverable from the estate - or possibly from a third party who raises opposition, if no assets remain in the estate.

In Re Avant Enterprises Inc.^[1], the Supreme Court of British Columbia expressed its reluctance to leave its receiver exposed in respect of costs incurred in the passing of its accounts.

The test for granting leave to appeal in Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act proceedings is well-settled:

On June 1, 2013, British Columbia's new Limitation Act (the "New Act")¹ came into force, changing the limitation periods for filing civil lawsuits in British Columbia.

InRe Bock inc.¹, a recent case decided under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA"), the Superior Court of Quebec made an order reviving a dealership agreement that was purported to be validly terminated by the manufacturer prior to the commencement of any insolvency proceedings.

As we previously reported, the Quebec government last month issued an omnibus cleanup order respecting the Lac-Mégantic disaster, including orders of questionable validity against shareholders of parties which may bear primary responsibility.

In a decision rendered on August 15, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Nortel denied a motion for leave to appeal in a CCAA proceeding, reiterating the stringent test for leave to appeal in such circumstances. More importantly for our purposes, the court reiterated the necessity for a motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence where the moving party seeks to rely upon such evidence.

I am tempted to draft a blog post listing the top ten ironies of bankruptcy law. There is no shortage of contenders for that list, and vying for the top spot would be the simple fact that you need a lot of money to go bankrupt. Bankruptcy (or its cousins, creditors arrangement and administration -- but not receivership, the economies of which could also feature in a blog post of its own) involves an influx of lawyers, accountants, and other professionals who negotiate and bicker their way through the company’s balance sheet, all while charging by the hour.

On September 4, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in the sentence appeal in R. v. Metron Construction Corporation¹ (“Metron”). Government prosecutors had appealed against the C$200,000 fine Metron received on July 13, 2012, after the company pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal negligence causing death.