On August 30, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice handed down its decision in Doyle Salewski Inc. v Scott 2019 ONSC 5108.

Although this lengthy decision covers many topics, one of interest relates to the "appropriate means" part of the discoverability analysis when a Trustee in Bankruptcy brings a claim for unjust enrichment.

Background

A Manitoba Court recently offered guidance on how to approach an appeal from a notice of disallowance or determination of a claim under section 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (“BIA”). Existing jurisprudence provided conflicting positions on whether to treat such appeals as true appeals or a hearing de novo. True appeals generally restrict the evidentiary record before the court to the evidence that was before the trustee. In a de novo hearing, the appeal court considers fresh evidence as a matter of course.

In most restructuring proceedings, money is needed to fund the professionals and the management team retained to preserve value in the insolvent company. This money must often be borrowed, and is typically secured by "super-priority" charges granted by the Court. An issue that has recently been before the Alberta courts is whether these charges also rank ahead of other claims that also have priority according to federal legislation.

On November 1, 2019, a number of amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) will come into force pursuant to the Canadian federal government’s budget implementation legislation for 2018 and 2019.

One of the biggest concerns for employers reorganizing in response to operational requirements is the potential for constructive dismissal claims by employees impacted by the changes.

A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision reminds us that a finding of constructive dismissal by a court, does not always result in an award of damages.

Companies and human resource managers need to be aware of the potential immigration implications that corporate changes, acquisitions or restructurings may have on temporary foreign workers (TFWs) that they employ in Canada. The immigration and work permit implications must be assessed before changes occur.

Background:

In Yukon (Government of) v. Yukon Zinc Corporation, 2019 YKSC 39 (“Yukon Zinc”), the Yukon Supreme Court recently lifted a stay of proceedings imposed in proposal proceedings commenced in British Columbia by Yukon Zinc, a Vancouver-based mining company whose principal asset is the Wolverine Mine in Yukon.

The federal government’s budget implementation bill, Bill C-86[1], received Royal Assent on December 14, 2018. An aspect of the budget implementation bill is the amendment of various legislation, including the Patent Act, the Trademarks Act, as part of the government’s implementation of its intellectual property (“IP”) strategy.

Administrative law – Judicial review – Appeals – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness

Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd., [2019] O.J. No. 1742, 2019 ONCA 269, Ontario Court of Appeal, April 8, 2019, K.N. Feldman, D. Paciocco and B. Zarnett JJ.A.