The case of Canrock Ventures LLC v. Ambercore Software Inc. et al is a cautionary tale for a Receiver and its counsel alike. In this case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected a Receiver’s application for the approval of an asset purchase agreement because of a failure to take the requisite steps when conducting a sale process and, in the Court’s view, failing to remain a neutral officer of the Court.

2011 ONCA 160 (Released March 2, 2011)

Trustee – Constructive Trust – Fraud – Bankruptcy

In this case, the Court of Appeal for Ontario explained the conditions under which a constructive trust remedy can be granted in favour of defrauded creditors after the fraudster enters into bankruptcy proceedings.

One of the duties of a trustee is to examine each claim presented by a potential creditor of the
bankrupt and to determine whether such a claim is valid. A trustee is entitled, under
subsection 135(2) of the BIA, to disallow any claim, priority or security that it finds unproven or
invalid. In the event that a creditor’s claim is disallowed by a trustee, that creditor is entitled to appeal that decision to the superior court in the province. A creditor has 30 days after the
receipt of the trustee’s reasons for disallowance to file an appeal, although an extension may be

Section 38 provides a mechanism by which a creditor can take the place of the trustee in any proceeding where the trustee refuses or fails to act. Essentially, the creditor stands in the place of the trustee and, if successful in the proceeding, is entitled to keep all proceeds, except those that exceed the total of the creditor’s claim and the creditor’s costs of the proceeding. Any surplus proceeds received by the creditor are the property of the bankrupt’s estate.

Section 163 gives the trustee the broad power to examine the bankrupt, any person who would be reasonably thought to know the affairs of the bankrupt, or any person who is or has been an agent, clerk, officer, director or employee with respect to the bankrupt or the bankrupt’s dealings. Essentially, this section gives the trustee the power to examine any person who is capable of providing information on the bankrupt.

TheBankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c. B‐3 (the “BIA”) was recently amended to repeal the settlement and reviewable transaction sections of the Act, and replaced these sections with provisions regarding transfers under value and preferences. The aim of these new provisions is to prevent bankrupts from unfairly preferring certain creditors over others and to prevent bankrupts from transferring assets for significantly less than they are worth.

The waiver of Solicitor/Client privilege by a bankrupt company is a difficult matter and one distinct from the waiver of such privilege by an individual bankrupt. As there is nothing in the BIA that either gives or denies a trustee the right to waive solicitor/client privilege on behalf of a company,Hahaha yes with a lot of candles! the courts have had to turn to the common law for guidance on the issue.

Recent regulations confirm that the GST/HST deemed trust has priority over all security interests and charges except for land or building charges. That exception has its own limitations. It is limited to the amount owing to the secured creditor at the time the tax debtor failed to remit the GST/HST. It also forces the secured creditor to look first to its other security; a kind of forced marshalling.

May a deceased person who dies in bankruptcy having failed to complete his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be discharged from bankruptcy?

This was the question that the British Columbia Supreme Court wrestled with earlier this year in a reported decision that began by noting that there was no jurisdiction on point.

Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 259, on appeal from (2009) 319 D.L.R. (4th) 735 (BCCA)

The union on behalf of the unionized employees of Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd., the bankrupt employer, had applied to the B.C.S.C. for directions and obtained a decision of that Court that the “wages” protected under the WEPPA “superpriority” for unpaid employees included amounts paid by the employer to third parties on behalf of the employees.