In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek ⁷ where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.

The court has a limited discretion not to make a bankruptcy order where the debt is the subject of a statutory demand which has not been paid and is outstanding at the time of the bankruptcy petition hearing.

The court will not review a bankruptcy order where there has been no material change and evidence subsequently adduced could have been available at the original hearing.

The making of a bankruptcy order alone will not deprive a judgment creditor of a final charging order where it is obtained before the bankruptcy order is made.

When there is a dispute as to which administrator should be appointed, the wishes of the creditor, for whose benefit the administration was, takes precedence.

MB had been the secured tenant of a property in which she lived with B, and which she had bought at a substantial discount. The property was conveyed into the joint names of MB and B as joint tenants. Although MB’s mortgage company had insisted the property be in joint names, she claimed that the intention had always been that B would only have a minimal interest in it. He had made no contribution to the purchase price, mortgage repayments or household expenses. When MB had ascertained the effect of the joint tenancy, she gave notice of severance to B.

Mergers & acquisitions (M&A)

Canada is an ideal location in which to establish and grow a business. One of the most common ways for foreign companies to expand to the Canadian market is through a merger with or acquisition of an existing Canadian business. There are a number of advantages to choosing Canada:

As the economic crisis brought on by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic deepens, commercial landlords would be wise to review the deposit language contained in their leases with their counsel. In particular, the wording of the rent deposit and security deposit provisions should be examined more closely and consideration given to who would be entitled to the deposit in the context of a tenant bankruptcy.

In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.

Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.

What is set off?

Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.

2018 was the "year of the CVA", slashing rents and forcing landlords to get to grips with long-winded CVA proposal documents in an attempt to allow struggling tenants to manage their debts, turn around their businesses and avoid terminal insolvency situations.

The unfortunate reality is that even if they are approved by landlords and other creditors, not all these CVAs will be successful and many tenants are likely to end up in administration.