The company, through its receivers, brought and prosecuted an unsuccessful claim against the defendants. The claim was financed from funds subject to the receivers’ control but the receivers had no beneficial or personal interest in those funds or the outcome of the proceedings. The first defendant sought to recover his costs of the proceedings from the receivers from funds realised in the course of the receivership on the basis that they were the real claimants, and had conducted the proceedings for the benefit of themselves and the bank that had appointed them.
Jasvir Jootla provides an overview of the recent changes to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act. She highlights the differences within the Act and discuss the impact it will have if you are dealing with insolvent businesses.
Transcript
COVID-19 has had an unimaginable impact on the corporate world. The assumptions on which parties approached corporate transactions like Joint Ventures (JV) have often been blown off course. Businesses that are party to JVs must monitor not just themselves but the condition of their JV partner and the impact that they may have on the JV. There is no 'off the shelf' Joint Venture Agreement (JVA). Analysing the legal and practical rights and constraints in each JV is therefore essential.
On June 19, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Third Eye Capital Corporation v. Ressources Dianor Inc./Dianor Resources Inc. [1], addressing the following issues:
Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security
Insolvency is high on the agenda in the construction industry.
In the first of this mini series, we take a look at the meaning of insolvency and summarise the main insolvency processes that can typically affect parties involved in construction projects. The series will also address contract issues and minimising risk, so keep an eye out for our future articles on this topic.
We're now at the halfway mark of Pensions in 30 Podcasts and episode 15 provides an overview of the Pensions Protection Fund (PPF). We look at how a scheme qualifies for entry into the PPF, funding and compensation.
Click here to listen to the podcast.
Key Points
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED
37268
Joseph Palazzo v. Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada
(Que.)
Civil Procedure – Appeal – Prescription
The Applicant was an employee of the Respondent from 1968 to 2009. In 1980, the Applicant began selling life insurance and investment products of the Respondent until his retirement on May 1, 2009. During his employment as a sales representative, the Applicant was paid on a commission basis only.
Introduction
A recent decision of the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (OPC) highlights the potentially broad application of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA).1
The “Indoor Management Rule” is well established in Canadian law. This common law rule holds that parties dealing with a corporation, acting in good faith and without knowledge of any irregularity, are entitled to assume that a corporation’s internal policies and proceedings have been followed and complied with. Some elements of the rule are codified in the various provincial business corporations statutes.