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:

When a company winds up, begins restructuring proceedings or goes bankrupt, a debtor or creditor may be able to cancel out the amount payable to the other party by using the remedy of “set‐off”. Set‐off involves the cancelling of crossliabilities between two parties who owe each other money. It is a valuable tool that can increase a creditor’s percentage of recovery and decrease the debt burden of a debtor.

Types of Set‐off: Contractual, Legal or Equitable

In Rieger Printing Ink Co, 2009 WL 477541 (Ont S.C.J. [Commercial]), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with a party's right to protection against selfincrimination in relation to an examination held under section 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. B-3 ("BIA").

In Re ScoZinc Ltd., 2009 NSSC 136 the monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) brought a motion for directions on whether it had the authority to allow the revision of a claim after the claim’s bar date, but before the date set for the monitor to complete its assessment of claims.

The U.S. doctrine of equitable subordination (as now set out in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code) allows a U.S. court to subordinate all or part of a creditor's claim to the claims of other creditors if the creditor has engaged in inequitable conduct that gives the creditor an unfair advantage or is injurious to the other creditors. Will the Canadian courts apply the doctrine?

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.

On April 7, 2011, in Indalex Limited (Re), 2011 ONCA 265 (Re Indalex), the Ontario Court of Appeal (the Court) held that in certain circumstances a pension plan wind-up deficit should be paid in priority to claims of secured creditors, including amounts outstanding under a court-approved debtor-in-possession facility (the DIP Facility).

Recently, in Re AbitibiBowater Inc., the Province of Newfoundland sought a court order granting it access to the electronic data room of Abitibi created for the purpose of dissemination of certain non-public financial and operation information to its counsel, certain creditors, and the Monitor. The Court denied the Province’s application on the basis that it could not prove itself to be a legitimate stakeholder of Abitibi, and on several policy grounds.

Recent changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act have given certain unpaid pension plan contributions priority over a lender’s security if the employer is bankrupt or in receivership. How can a lender monitor the debtor’s pension arrears to assess the extent of the lender’s loss of priority?

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act now provides that certain unpaid pension plan claims rank ahead of a lender’s security in bankruptcy or receivership proceedings. Effective July 7, 2008, sections 81.5 and 81.6 give super-priority status to:

In Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v.