35820     Alberta (Attorney General) v. Moloney

Constitutional law — Division of powers — Federal paramountcy — Bankruptcy and insolvency

Appeal from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (2014 ABCA 68), affirming a decision of Moen J. (2012 ABQB 644).

What do a car crash in Alberta, a delinquent farm mortgage in Saskatchewan and an unpaid highway toll ticket in Ontario have in common?

They all ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

In our update this month we take a look at a case in which a non-party costs order was made against a major shareholder in the insolvent claimant company. The court found that the shareholder was the real party to the litigation; it funded the litigation, it was exercising control over the litigation and it would have been the main beneficiary had the litigation succeeded. We cover this, and other issues affecting the insolvency and fraud industry:

Montpelier Business Reorganisation Ltd v Jones & Others (2017)

Background

A borrower who, without having the right to do so, would not pay a credit instalment due between 12 March 2020 and one month after the end of the state of health emergency (which is supposed to last two months as from 24 March 2020 but could be extended), could argue that the loan documents' acceleration clause and default interest clause (a liquidated damage clause) shall only take effect after that period pursuant to Ordinance No. 2020-306 of 25 March 2020, adopted further to the "emergency" Law No. 2020-290 of 23 March 2020.

A borrower who, without having the right to do so, would not pay a credit instalment due between 12 March 2020 and one month after the end of the state of health emergency (which is supposed to last two months as from 24 March 2020 but could be extended), could argue that the loan documents' acceleration clause and default interest clause (a liquidated damage clause) shall only take effect after that period pursuant to Ordinance No. 2020-306 of 25 March 2020, adopted further to the "emergency" Law No. 2020-290 of 23 March 2020.

Un emprunteur qui, sans en avoir le droit, ne paierait pas l'échéance d'un crédit entre le 12 mars 2020 et l'expiration d'un délai d'un mois à compter de la date de cessation de l'état d'urgence sanitaire (lui-même censé durer deux mois à compter du 24 mars 2020 sauf report), pourrait arguer que la clause d'exigibilité anticipée du crédit et la clause d'intérêts de retard (une clause pénale) ne pourront produire leurs effets qu'à compter de l'expiration de cette période en application de l'ordonnance n° 2020-306 du 25 mars 2020 prise en application de la loi d'urgence n° 2020-290 du 23 mars

众所周知，采矿业面临着艰难的局面。在最近几年的市场繁荣时期，矿业公司承担了空前庞大的债务。目前，随着商品价格的下降和再融资来源的枯竭，这些巨额的债务令许多公司步履维艰，严重威胁着它们的生存。

加拿大

若无法与债权人商定业务解决方案，公司应该考虑向债权人寻求破产法项下的保护。在加拿大拥有资产或在加拿大经营业务且债务金额在五百万以上的公司可获得联邦《公司债权人安排法》（简称，“CCAA”）项下的保护。

CCAA允许公司在重组公司事务时暂缓债权人追诉，同时根据某些条件维持对公司经营的控制。公司，特别是未达到五百万债务门槛的公司，还可以考虑联邦《破产法》项下的和解机制。在本文中，我们将讨论CCAA项下的程序。

CCAA项下程序的第一步是获得法院命令，该命令将暂缓债权人在三十日的初始期限内行使其权利，从而允许公司制定重组方案。在获得首个暂缓命令前，公司无需通知债权人，尽管在许多情况下，建议公司通知其债权人。

若公司能够证明其很有可能将提交重组方案，并且延期不会有损于债权人的整体利益，暂缓命令的期限还可以延长。下达暂缓命令时，法院还将任命独立第三方在命令生效期间，监控公司业务及财务事宜。监控人须向法院报告公司的业务行为，但并不管理或指导公司业务。

In Paul L. Schnier v. Her Majesty the Queen,[1]  the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) dismissed a motion to quash an appeal brought on the basis that the appellant did not, as an undischarged bankrupt, have the capacity, pursuant to Section 71 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, to deal with property, including the ability to bring an appeal. The Appellant believed he was required to file the appeal, but did not obtain the trustee in bankruptcy’s permission when he commenced the appeal.

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.

36153 Ryan Glenn Ziegler v. Her Majesty the Queen (Criminal law – Dangerous offender)