On July 31, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its decision in Ridel v. Goldberg, clarifying the interplay of the various provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 at play in circumstances where judgment creditors are allowed to take proceedings in their own name pursuant to an order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Facts

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.

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.

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.

The Ontario Court of Appeal determines when it is appropriate to vest out a royalty interest as part of an insolvency proceeding

The Importance of the Decision

Vesting orders have become one of the most powerful tools in an insolvency professional’s toolkit, providing a purchaser with the comfort that the encumbrances contributing to the debtor’s financial difficulties cannot follow to the new owner. In light of their importance, Canadian insolvency and banking professionals were understandably anxious when the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA” or the “Court”) recently asked for submissions on whether receivership vesting orders can extinguish third party interests in land in the nature of a Gross Overriding Royalty (a “GOR”).1