When a company winds up, begins restructuring proceedings or goes bankrupt, a debtor or creditor may be able to cancel out the amount payable to the other party by using the remedy of “set‐off”. Set‐off involves the cancelling of crossliabilities between two parties who owe each other money. It is a valuable tool that can increase a creditor’s percentage of recovery and decrease the debt burden of a debtor.

Types of Set‐off: Contractual, Legal or Equitable

The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), which arose from the restructuring proceedings of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and was released on December 6, 2010, is a landmark decision in Canadian insolvency law.

The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Indalex Limited (Re) has created considerable uncertainty over the priority status afforded to pension plan wind-up deficits, particularly in insolvency proceedings involving the plan sponsor.

Although originating from equity, declared but unpaid dividends have historically been treated as debt claims by courts in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).1 Following the coming into force of the CCAA amendments in September 2009, a fresh look at the characterization of claims as debt or equity is being undertaken.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of pension deficits in the context of a restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). However, unlike past decisions, in Re Indalex the Court held that such deficits may have priority against monies advanced under interim debtor-in-possession ("DIP") financing agreements authorized by a CCAA judge. This apparent departure from the conventional understanding of the priority of pension deficit claims and related issues should raise concerns for lenders, employers, and plan administrators.

Recent regulations confirm that the GST/HST deemed trust has priority over all security interests and charges except for land or building charges. That exception has its own limitations. It is limited to the amount owing to the secured creditor at the time the tax debtor failed to remit the GST/HST. It also forces the secured creditor to look first to its other security; a kind of forced marshalling.

The case of Canrock Ventures LLC v. Ambercore Software Inc. et al is a cautionary tale for a Receiver and its counsel alike. In this case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected a Receiver’s application for the approval of an asset purchase agreement because of a failure to take the requisite steps when conducting a sale process and, in the Court’s view, failing to remain a neutral officer of the Court.

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently denied an application by Celtic Exploration Ltd. ("Celtic") for leave to appeal a decision from a Companies’ Creditors Arrangements Act (Canada) ("CCAA") proceeding involving Celtic and SemCAMS ULC ("SemCAMS"). The CCAA court found that the parties’ gas purchase agreement had been suspended as of July 2008, and as a result, Celtic could not set off amounts it owed to SemCAMS after that date against indebtedness arising under the agreement.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled in the Century Servicesi case that Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) deemed trusts under the federal Excise Tax Act (“ETA”) are ineffective in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).

Creditors and debtors often enter into agreements with respect to the repayment of indebtedness.