L’arbitrage est un mode consensuel de résolution des différends qui permet aux parties de personnaliser leur processus et même de choisir leur propre décideur. L’insolvabilité est le scénario diamétralement opposé, dans lequel les différends concernant le débiteur sont involontairement regroupés devant un seul tribunal d’insolvabilité.

Arbitration is a consensual method of dispute resolution in which the parties can customize their process and even select their own decision-maker. Insolvency is the diametrically opposite scenario, where disputes involving the debtor are involuntarily consolidated before a single insolvency court.

In the receivership proceedings of Distinct Infrastructure Group Inc.

A bankruptcy discharge releases the debtor from pre-bankruptcy debts or liabilities. The purpose is to give the debtor a “fresh start” from excessive debts that cannot be repaid, except in certain situations such as where the debt arises from deceitful or fraudulent conduct. In Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that securities sanctions are excluded from bankruptcy discharge.

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of August 22, 2022.

In Mundo Media Ltd. (Re), the Court refused leave to appeal in a bankruptcy case where a debtor of the bankrupt sought to stay the bankruptcy proceeding in favour of international arbitration. The single proceeding model permits a bankruptcy court to override arbitration agreements.

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.

It is common for construction project owners to finance projects through multiple mortgages, especially in times of rising construction costs. However, when an insolvency situation arises, holdback priority claims from contractors and subcontractors are particularly complex when there are multiple building mortgages involved. The Ontario Superior Court (Commercial List) provided new clarity in this regard in its April 29, 2022 decision in BCIMC Construction Fund Corp. et al.

Understanding limitation periods are of crucial importance in the construction industry, particularly when a contractor is faced with unpaid invoices for services or materials rendered. The Ontario Court of Appeal stepped back into the spotlight in this regard with its decision in Thermal Exchange Service Inc. v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1289, 2022 ONCA 186, in holding that a defendant's assurances may prolong the "discoverability" of a claim for non-payment.

Background

The “fresh start” principle is a long-standing objective of Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA“) that aims assist honest but unfortunate debtors by discharging debts owed to creditors. However, in the recent decision Poonian (Re), 2022 BCCA 274, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that sanctions imposed by the British Columbia Securities (the “Commission“) in respect of fraud related misconduct will survive any discharge under the BIA.

Canada’s insolvency regime provides a “fresh start” policy for honest but unfortunate debtors. The policy relieves Canadians from excessive debts through bankruptcy, except in certain instances such as where a debt arises from the bankrupt’s deceitful or dishonest conduct.