Does a claim for a balance of sale of shares, originally owed by one of the two entities that amalgamated to become the debtor, constitute an equity claim pursuant to section 2(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act1 (hereafter the BIA) in the context of a proposal of that same debtor?

If so, what are the consequences for the Seller?

Background

Questions en litige

Est ce qu’une créance relative à un solde de prix de vente d’actions, initialement due par une des deux entités ayant fusionné pour devenir la débitrice, constitue une réclamation relative à des capitaux propres au sens de l’article 2 (1) de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité1 (ci après la « LFI ») dans le cadre de la proposition de cette même débitrice?

Le cas échéant, quelles sont les conséquences pour le Vendeur?

Trame factuelle

Introduction

Regulatory obligations often conflict with bankruptcy law. It has long been considered a necessary benefit that people get a fresh start through bankruptcy. The law provides for exceptions to this principle, on the basis of equally important public policy grounds that certain penalties and obligations should not be so easily avoided.

A limitation period is the statutory time limit set out in law for a person to file a lawsuit as a result of some loss or damage. Each Canadian province has a specific statutory framework governing limitation periods for legal matters falling under provincial jurisdiction. Many provinces use a “discoverability” scheme under which a person must commence legal proceedings within two years of specific factual elements being “discovered” by the person.

On November 20, 2021, long-awaited amendments to the Wage Earner Protection Program (“WEPP”) came into force. The amendments are a welcome change to WEPP and will close some of the remaining gaps in the program designed to protect some of the most vulnerable stakeholders in an insolvency proceeding – employees.

The Wage Earner Protection Program

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of December 27, 2021. There were only two substantive civil decisions released this week.

On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Montréal (City) v.

On March 23, 2020, we commented on the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision in the Arrangement relating to Consultants SM inc. case. The City of Montreal (the “City”) appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and the appeal was heard on May 20, 2021.

On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Supreme Court”) dismissed the City’s appeal, thereby rendering an important decision with respect to “pre-post compensation” and “non-dischargeable debts” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”).

In 2017, the Quebec Court of Appeal had issued a decision in the matter of Arrangement relatif à Métaux Kitco inc., 2017 QCCA 268 ("Kitco") to the effect that the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") prohibited the exercise of all rights of set-off between pre-filing and post-filing claims.