In our update this month we take a look at three cases that provide helpful clarification from the courts on issues that will be of interest to the insolvency and fraud industry - the key message from each case confirms:

Defendant's threat of insolvency did not prevent adjudicator's decision being enforced.

This month we consider the court's view on the extent to which firms' activities in handling complaints are themselves subject to adjudication by the Financial Ombudsman Service; the exercise of the court's discretion in refusing an unopposed application to annul a bankruptcy order; and more cases and issues affecting the industry:

The High Court considers the remit of the FOS's jurisdiction

The economies of the United States and Canada are closely intertwined. As operations expand across the border, so too do the complexities associated with carrying on business — particularly the insolvency of a company spanning both jurisdictions. As such, understanding how to navigate the complexities of Canadian insolvency regimes is essential to successfully doing business in the country.

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).

Introduction

This paper aims to present a brief summary of significant legal decisions over the past year, as they relate to and impact Ontario consumer bankruptcy and insolvency practitioners. It is by no means necessarily comprehensive or exhaustive.

Effect of an Order of Discharge on driver’s licenses and outstanding penalties

In 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Saulnier⁵ that a commercial fishing licence constitutes ‘property’ within the context of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and the Nova Scotia PPSA⁶, thereby allowing the trustee in bankruptcy to seize the licence from the bankrupt.

A notice of intention to appoint administrators (a Notice), although not an absolute bar to making a final charging order, will generally act as a moratorium. This prevents creditors from taking steps to enforce their claims against a company without the permission of the court.

S271 Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a bankruptcy petition may be dismissed if the court is satisfied that a debtor can pay his debt, or has made an offer to secure or compound the debt, the acceptance of which offer would lead to the petition being dismissed and that the offer has been unreasonably refused. But what is a reasonable refusal?

For debtors with limited liabilities, little surplus income and minimal gross assets, the new Debt Relief Order (DRO) is a further tool to consider in managing their debts. DROs, which came into force on 6 April 2009, are aimed at those who find they are unable to pay off their debts within a reasonable time but for whom other forms of debt relief, such as bankruptcy or Individual Voluntary Arrangements, are unavailable, or perhaps unaffordable.

What are the criteria for a DRO?

A DRO can be applied for where the debtor:

Secured creditors with an unsecured shortfall cannot claim a share of the prescribed part of the floating charge realisations set aside for unsecured creditors under Section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986. This applies whether the secured creditor is the holder of a fixed or a floating charge (or both).