The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in msi Spergel Inc. v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550 (“msi Spergel”) confirms that the Court will not suspend, extend or otherwise vary the general two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 (the “Limitations Act”) unless there is express statutory authority to do so.

A Canadian on-line dating site, PlentyofFish, wanted to purchase the bankrupt site True.com but the Texas Attorney General filed a petition to block the marriage on the ground that the transfer of the private personal information of millions of people who had used True.com would potentially violate the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Which made us think: Is a corporation’s violation of its customers’ personal privacy covered by insurance?

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.

On October 28, 2013, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) announced that it had reached a settlement with the former directors and officers of Northstar Aerospace whereby those former directors and officers agreed to pay $4.75 million for costs associated with the remediation of contaminated lands owned by the now-bankrupt company. The Environmental Review Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement at the hearing held on October 28.

The Canadian online dating service PlentyofFish.com had been attempting to purchase the 43 million member database of bankrupt dating site True Beginnings. Information in the database included dates of birth, usernames, passwords, credit card numbers, as well as dating profiles. The database purchase price was set at $700,000. The Texas Attorney General, however, filed an objection with the bankruptcy court on the grounds that the purchase would be a violation of True Beginnings’ privacy policy, since members had not agreed to have their information sold.

In October 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decisions in Nortel Networks Corporation (Re) and Northstar Aerospace Inc. (Re). These decisions throw yet another wrench into the gears for owners and past owners of contaminated properties and the directors and officers of corporations owning such properties.

Background to Nortel

On October 28th, 2013 the Ministry of the Environment (“MOE”) and the former directors and officers of Northstar Aerospace Canada (“Northstar”) reached a $4.75 million settlement for the remediation of a property owned by Northstar in Cambridge, Ontario.

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.