Many describe the United States as Canada's most important trade partner. Cross-border insolvency proceedings between the two jurisdictions are frequent and the recognition by one country's court of the other's bankruptcy orders is an important tool in facilitating the restructuring of companies with operations that spread across North America. A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (leave to appeal of which was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada) invites us to reflect on the delicate balance between comity for foreign orders and Canada's sovereignty over domestic laws.

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has released its decision in Canada North, conclusively resolving the priority dispute between deemed trusts created under the federal “fiscal statutes” (being the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”), the

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) in Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2021 SCC 30 [Canada North] recently held that courts in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) have the authority to rank super-priority charges ahead of the Crown’s deemed trust claim for unremitted source deductions.

Suppliers and subcontractors in the construction industry should be mindful of a recent unreported decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In Carillion Canada Inc. (Re), the Court held that an automatic cash sweep of Carillion’s Ontario bank account rid the funds of their trust character leaving Carillion’s subcontractors in Canada with no proprietary claim to $22 million sitting in an overseas bank account maintained with a global bank (the “Bank”).

Good faith, honesty, and transparency are the watchwords of Canada’s insolvency regimes. Where a debtor makes a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), but the Court finds that instead of acting in good faith it engaged in self-interested behavior designed to benefit other members of a corporate group, the Court will uphold the BIA’s principles and refuse to sanction the proposal.

In the past two years, reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) have gone from obscurity to being the tool of choice in many complex restructurings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). As restructuring practitioners increasingly employ RVOs, it begs the question: Will RVOs replace traditional CCAA plans?

Au cours des deux dernières années, les ordonnances de dévolution inversée (« ODI ») sont passées de concept inaperçu à l’outil de choix dans de nombreuses restructurations complexes menées en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Comme les spécialistes en restructuration recourent de plus en plus aux ODI, la question se pose : les ODI remplaceront-elles les plans traditionnels pris en vertu de la LACC?

On June 17, 2021, McCarthy Tétrault virtually hosted A Panel Discussion about the CCAA with Partners Heather Meredith, Jacques Rousse, and Awanish Sinha. The discussion focused on the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), reasons why organizations use the CCAA, and particular insights about the Laurentian University CCAA proceeding.

The following are some key takeaways from the panel:

On June 17, 2021, the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) dismissed two companion appeals in the receivership proceedings of Accel Canada Holdings Limited (Holdings) and Accel Energy Canada Limited (Energy and together with Holdings, Accel).

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of June 14, 2021.

In Kelava v. Spadacini, the Court found that a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court has the jurisdiction to make a representation order relying on Rule 12 of the ordinary Rules of Civil Procedure by analogy. The overriding consideration in Small Claims Court matters is access to justice.