Since our last update in October 2019, there have been many interesting developments in the area of environmental law. The COVID-19 pandemic, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and climate change were key topics that shaped judicial, legislative, and policy changes in British Columbia and across Canada. With respect to judicial developments, disputes over natural resource projects, contaminated sites, environmental prosecutions, as well as judicial review or appeal decisions arising from environmental regulatory bodies, brought many changes to the landscape of environmental law.

FT ENE Canada Inc. (“FECI”) was in the nanofibre business, and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Finetex ENE Inc. (“Finetex”). As a result of insolvency difficulties separate and apart from the Canadian business, Finetex was engaged in bankruptcy proceedings in Korea (its home jurisdiction). There was animosity between Finetex and the director of FECI.

​The Québec Superior Court recently rendered a judgment (Francis v. Adobe 2018 QCCS 2547) confirming that a bankrupt's debt may be declared non-releasable by a discharge order pursuant to section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "Act"), even when said discharge order has not yet been rendered or when the bankrupt's discharge has been suspended or granted conditionally pursuant to section 173 of the Act.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia made an order that the funds in a Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) could not be seized by the Trustee-in-Bankruptcy of the bankrupt beneficiary to satisfy the claims of creditors.

The Alberta Energy Regulator’s (the “AER”) final phase of changes to the Licensee Liability Rating Program (the “LLR Program”) comes into effect on August 1, 2015. The AER’s Bulletin 2015-13 (found here) says that the implementation date was delayed from May 1 to August 1, 2015, to give licensees more time to understand the implications of, and prepare for, the Phase-3 program changes in light of current market conditions.

In the decision of Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in In the Matter of Aero Inventory (UK) Limited and Aero Inventory PLC, the Court held that proceeds of a fraudulent preference action recovered by a trustee in bankruptcy under section 95 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) may be subject to the rights of secured creditors, to the extent secured creditors had rights in the collateral in question at the time of the impugned transaction.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada1 ("Saulnier"), an important case involving fishing licences in the context of a secured lending transaction and an assignment in bankruptcy. This case contains what we believe is significant commentary on classifying certain governmental licences as "property" under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") and "personal property" under the Personal Property Security Act (Nova Scotia) (the "Nova Scotia PPSA").

In the face of increased tenant bankruptcies caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a key question arises for commercial landlords: what protection do I have from the security provided by my tenant? Tenant-supplied security under a lease can take many forms, including a third party guarantee or indemnity, prepaid rent, a cash deposit, and a letter of credit (an LOC). Crucially, certain forms of security will be more beneficial to a landlord in the face of a tenant bankruptcy, especially where the lease has been disclaimed by the tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy.

Effective November 1, 2019, amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (the CCAA) will, among other things, impose a requirement of good faith on all parties to proceedings (BIA and CCAA), impose an additional form of director liability (BIA), and limit the scope of relief on initial orders (CCAA).

In 2002 the Supreme Court of Canada, in Bank of Montreal v Dynex Petroleum Ltd, 2002 SCC 7 (Dynex) affirmed that gross overriding royalty interests (GOR) could constitute interest in land provided the parties so intended and that intention was sufficiently evidenced in an agreement.