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.
On January 14, 2015, Target Corporation ("Target US") announced the exit of substantially all of its Canadian operations less than two years after opening its first Canadian stores in a strategic push to operate at least one store in every province of Canada. The following day, on January 15, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) in Toronto (the "Court") granted Target Canada Co.
Un avis de cotisation de l’Agence du revenu du Canada (l’ARC) constitue une mesure de recouvrement prouvable au sens de l’article 69.3 de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (LFI). Lorsque l’ARC est un créancier non garanti, la réclamation est sujette à la suspension des procédures de l’article 69.3 LFI, et pour lever cette suspension, l’ARC doit se présenter devant le tribunal, tel que prévu par l’article 69.4 LFI.
Recent decisions in the Ontario courts have brought this issue to the forefront, which is salient during this time of economic uncertainty for the oil industry and its related environmental obligations. The courts have had to focus on balancing competing public interests: those of creditors and the general health and safety of the public when a debtor has an outstanding obligation to remediate its pollution.
Antérieurement à sa faillite, la débitrice agissait à titre d’entreprise fournissant des services de « warehousing, receiving and shipping (pick and pack) ».
Après la faillite de l’entreprise survenue le 9 janvier 2014, l’un de ses anciens clients a réclamé du syndic la remise de ses inventaires.
Un torréfacteur manufacturier de café veut pétitionner en faillite son distributeur dans la région de l’Estrie. Cette procédure de faillite est assortie d’une demande pour ordonnance de sauvegarde afin que le tribunal prononce l’annulation de clauses de non-concurrence et de non-sollicitation.
La Cour supérieure du district de Québec est saisie d’une requête en homologation d’une proposition aux termes de l’article 58 de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (la « LFI »). Le tribunal précise que son rôle n’est pas de modifier le contenu du concordat qui a déjà été accepté par les créanciers mais qu’il ne peut que l’approuver ou le rejeter.
DOING BUSINESS IN CANADA: A LEGAL OVERVIEW 1 INTRODUCTION 2 A SNAPSHOT OF CANADA 3 FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN CANADA 4 BUSINESS STRUCTURES 5 SECURITIES 6 REAL ESTATE 7 INCOME AND SALES TAXES 8 IMMIGRATION 9 LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT 10 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 11 PRIVACY 11 CIVIL/COMMERCIAL LITIGATION 11 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 12 INSOLVENCY AND RESTRUCTURING DOING BUSINESS IN CANADA: A LEGAL OVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS © TORKIN MANES LLP 2012INTRODUCTION DOING BUSINESS IN CANADA: A LEGAL OVERVIEW 1 Canada has always been a great place for non-Canadians to do business.
Over the last few weeks, the news has been dominated by stories of struggling businesses, including Target Canada Co. (“Target Canada”) and the impending mass termination of its employees. Many of these reports have focused on the (subjectively) small“severance packages” these employees are expected to receive.