On June 6, 2014, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) released additional reasons¹ to his decision in Romspen Investment Corp. v. 6711162 Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 2781, centred on the cost submissions made by counsel to Romspen Investment Corp. (“Romspen”). Despite a contractual provision in a mortgage agreement that gave the applicant, Romspen, a right to full indemnity costs from the respondents, Justice Brown found that the legal fees incurred by counsel to Romspen were unreasonable.

This article has been contributed by Martin Desrosiers and Julien Morissette, partner and associate respectively, in the Insolvency & Restructuring Group of 

The general principle is that security granted on tangible property also charges the property’s accessories. That is not the case however when intellectual property (“IP”) rights belonging to a third party attach to inventory¹. For such rights are not considered to be accessories and thus are not charged by the security, unless the holder of the IP rights has otherwise agreed. 

If the grantor of the security goes bankrupt, enforcement of the creditor’s security could thus be compromised because of the third-party IP rights.  

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

36238 Her Majesty the Queen v. Erin Lee MacDonald (Charter of Rights – Mandatory minimum sentences – Cruel and unusual punishment – Criminal law – Sentencing)

Au début de 2015, les sociétés 9171665 Canada Ltd. et Connacher Oil and Gas Limited (collectivement, « Connacher ») ont présenté à la Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta (la « Cour ») une demande d’ordonnance finale en vertu de l’article 192 de la Loi canadienne sur les sociétés par actions (la « LCSA ») en vue de l’approbation d’un plan d’arrangement visant la restructuration de Connacher (l’« Arrangement »). Le 2 avril 2015, le juge C.M.

In early 2015, 9171665 Canada Ltd. and Connacher Oil and Gas Ltd. (together Connacher) applied to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (Court) for a final order pursuant to section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for the approval of a plan of arrangement to restructure Connacher (Arrangement). On April 2, 2015, Justice C.M. Jones rejected Connacher's restructuring proposal for the reasons set out below.

Un torréfacteur manufacturier de café veut pétitionner en faillite son distributeur dans la région de l’Estrie. Cette procédure de faillite est assortie d’une demande pour ordonnance de sauvegarde afin que le tribunal prononce l’annulation de clauses de non-concurrence et de non-sollicitation.

La Cour supérieure du district de Québec est saisie d’une requête en homologation d’une proposition aux termes de l’article 58 de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (la « LFI »). Le tribunal précise que son rôle n’est pas de modifier le contenu du concordat qui a déjà été accepté par les créanciers mais qu’il ne peut que l’approuver ou le rejeter.

DOING BUSINESS IN CANADA: A LEGAL OVERVIEW 1 INTRODUCTION 2 A SNAPSHOT OF CANADA 3 FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN CANADA 4 BUSINESS STRUCTURES 5 SECURITIES 6 REAL ESTATE 7 INCOME AND SALES TAXES 8 IMMIGRATION 9 LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT 10 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 11 PRIVACY 11 CIVIL/COMMERCIAL LITIGATION 11 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 12 INSOLVENCY AND RESTRUCTURING DOING BUSINESS IN CANADA: A LEGAL OVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS © TORKIN MANES LLP 2012INTRODUCTION DOING BUSINESS IN CANADA: A LEGAL OVERVIEW 1 Canada has always been a great place for non-Canadians to do business.