Pursuant to an Order in Council dated July 4, 2008, July 7, 2008 was established as the date that certain of the provisions of S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the "Insolvency Reform Act 2005") and S.C. 2007, c. 36 (the "Insolvency Reform Act 2007") came into force. The Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the "WEPPA") as well as certain of the amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") made by the Insolvency Reform Act 2005 and the Insolvency Reform Act 2007 are, as a result, now in force.

For the first time ever in Canada, super-priority rights have been given to employees which will take priority over existing secured creditors.

The relationship between Canada and the United States is one of the closest and most extensive in the world. With the equivalent of $1.6 billion in bilateral trade every day3, it is no surprise that a large number of US companies have subsidiary operations and assets located in Canada. Despite numerous socio-economic similarities between both countries and legal regimes both anchored in the tradition of common law, there are a number of legal differences that have the potential to significantly impact US companies doing business in Canada.

On July 7, 2008 specific provisions of the Insolvency Reform Act, 2005 and the Insolvency Reform Act, 2007 were proclaimed into force by Order in Council. As a result, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the “WEPPA”) and certain related amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) have come into immediate effect.

Certain of those amendments are intended to protect current and former employees of insolvent companies and will affect lenders to insolvent businesses.

In Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. v. Chiang, an Order was granted in 2006 compelling the bankrupt and others to attend for an examination by the trustee under section 163(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In 2008, the trustee applied under the same section to examine the bankrupt and others again.

Section 163(1) of the BIA provides:

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") was unperfected as against a trustee in bankruptcy (the "Trustee"), because RBC failed to comply with section 48(3) of the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the "PPSA") by failing to file a financing change statement to reflect a change of the debtor’s name after assets of the debtor were sold by a court appointed interim receiver.

In anticipation of the coming into force of amendments to current Canadian insolvency legislation, the Toronto Insolvency and Workout Group has created a comprehensive tool to help identify the changes.

We have created blackline versions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada), the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) and the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (Canada) which show what the statutes will look like when the amendments are proclaimed in force and which specifically illustrate the changes that have been made.

Imagine that a critical part of your business is dependent on a software program that you license from a software supplier. This scenario is not that hard to imagine, because in fact most businesses and other organizations are indeed reliant on licensed software – it is simply a fact of life in the computer age.

In Royal Bank v. 2021847 Ontario Ltd. et al. (2007), Carswell Ont. 8283, the plaintiff Royal Bank sought summary judgment against the guarantors of a credit facility it granted to 2021847 Ontario Ltd. (“2021847”). The amount the plaintiff sought against the guarantors was the deficiency remaining after the plaintiff had appointed a receiver over the assets of the debtor company. The proceeds from the realization of the receivership were insufficient to payout 2021847’s credit facility.

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.