This article has been contributed to the blog by Ziyi Shi. Ziyi Shi is an associate cross-appointed to the Corporate Group and Insolvency and Restructuring Group of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.
In the context of a tenant’s bankruptcy, Justice Romaine of the Alberta Queens Bench recently characterized a deposit provided under a lease as a security interest, as opposed to pre-paid rent, forcing an unsecured landlord to remit the money to a trustee in bankruptcy.
The existence of trusts that may be connected to a borrower’s assets can be a lending hazard. They do not appear on PPSA search print-outs and, in many cases, they are not shown on a borrower’s financial statements and cannot be searched through traditional due diligence methods.
On June 6, 2014, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) released additional reasons1 to his decision in Romspen Investment Corp. v. 6711162 Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 2781, centred on the cost submissions made by counsel to Romspen Investment Corp. (“Romspen”). Despite a contractual provision in a mortgage agreement that gave the applicant, Romspen, a right to full indemnity costs from the respondents, Justice Brown found that the legal fees incurred by counsel to Romspen were unreasonable.
This article has been contributed by Martin Desrosiers and Julien Morissette, partner and associate respectively, in the Insolvency & Restructuring Group of
The general principle is that security granted on tangible property also charges the property’s accessories. That is not the case however when intellectual property (“IP”) rights belonging to a third party attach to inventory1. For such rights are not considered to be accessories and thus are not charged by the security, unless the holder of the IP rights has otherwise agreed.
If the grantor of the security goes bankrupt, enforcement of the creditor’s security could thus be compromised because of the third-party IP rights.
36153 Ryan Glenn Ziegler v. Her Majesty the Queen (Criminal law – Dangerous offender)
36238 Her Majesty the Queen v. Erin Lee MacDonald (Charter of Rights – Mandatory minimum sentences – Cruel and unusual punishment – Criminal law – Sentencing)
Au début de 2015, les sociétés 9171665 Canada Ltd. et Connacher Oil and Gas Limited (collectivement, « Connacher ») ont présenté à la Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta (la « Cour ») une demande d’ordonnance finale en vertu de l’article 192 de la Loi canadienne sur les sociétés par actions (la « LCSA ») en vue de l’approbation d’un plan d’arrangement visant la restructuration de Connacher (l’« Arrangement »). Le 2 avril 2015, le juge C.M.
In early 2015, 9171665 Canada Ltd. and Connacher Oil and Gas Ltd. (together Connacher) applied to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (Court) for a final order pursuant to section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for the approval of a plan of arrangement to restructure Connacher (Arrangement). On April 2, 2015, Justice C.M. Jones rejected Connacher's restructuring proposal for the reasons set out below.