In a unanimous decision issued November 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted the appeal of the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada v Callidus Capital Corp, 2017 FCA 162.

In the recent decision of Alexander Pleshakov v Sky Stream Corporation and Others (Pleshakov), the BVI Court of Appeal considered the scope of its jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact made at first instance. This is the second time this year that the BVI Court of Appeal has addressed this issue.

The Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) has overturned the decision rendered by a majority of the Federal Court of Appeal (the FCA) in Callidus Capital Corporation v Her Majesty the Queen.

The case originated out of a motion filed in the Federal Court (the FC) by Callidus Capital Corporation (Callidus) to determine the following question of law:

There were six substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week. There were many criminal decisions released.

In Wall v. Shaw, the Court determined that there is no limitation period to objecting to accounts in an application to pass accounts in an estates matter. A notice of objection is not a “proceeding” within the meaning of the Limitations Act, 2002.

On November 8, 2018, in a decision delivered unanimously from the bench, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the Crown’s superpriority over unremitted Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) is ineffective against a secured creditor who received, prior to a tax debtor’s bankruptcy, proceeds from that taxpayer’s assets.1

One of the most delicate balancing acts that the Courts are asked to perform in Canada is balancing all of the disparate and competing interests in an insolvency process. The Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to review one iteration of this balancing act in Reciprocal Opportunities Incorporated v.

Secured creditors can breathe a sigh of relief. We have received word that the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed the appeal from the bench in Canada v. Callidus Capital Corporation (“Callidus”).

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Ledcor case (which held that “resultant damage” arising from faulty workmanship is not excluded by the faulty workmanship exclusion in a builders’ risk policy) was held not to allow for coverage for “resultant damage” arising from faulty workmanship under an all-risks property policy.

In a recent decision Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership 2018 BCSC 970, the British Columbia Superior Court confirmed that:

On September 25, 2018, just days before his retirement, Senator Art Eggleton moved second reading of Bill S-253, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts and Regulations (pension plans).

Bill S-253 seeks to accomplish two things: