Au Québec, le droit de la consommation évolue régulièrement et la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (L.P.C.) continue de faire l’objet de plusieurs décisions des tribunaux chaque mois.

À l’occasion de la publication de ce nouveau bulletin de notre série en droit de la consommation, nous présentons les développements récents dans ce domaine sous l’angle des décisions des quelque 12 derniers mois de la Cour d’appel du Québec, qui apportent un éclairage sur des règles de la L.P.C.

On January 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the appeal from the Québec Court of Appeal’s decision in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. et al. v. Callidus Capital Corporation, et al., opening the doors to third-party litigation funding in insolvency proceedings in Canada.

Background

​The Québec Superior Court recently rendered a judgment (Francis v. Adobe 2018 QCCS 2547) confirming that a bankrupt's debt may be declared non-releasable by a discharge order pursuant to section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "Act"), even when said discharge order has not yet been rendered or when the bankrupt's discharge has been suspended or granted conditionally pursuant to section 173 of the Act.

Facts: The appellants were brothers who had incorporated a company (the “Corporation”) which was, in January 2008, involuntarily dissolved for failure to file corporate tax returns as required. In 2014, the minister issued an assessment under section 160 Notice of Assessment against the appellants.

Recent decisions in the Ontario courts have brought this issue to the forefront, which is salient during this time of economic uncertainty for the oil industry and its related environmental obligations. The courts have had to focus on balancing competing public interests: those of creditors and the general health and safety of the public when a debtor has an outstanding obligation to remediate its pollution.

In the decision of Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in In the Matter of Aero Inventory (UK) Limited and Aero Inventory PLC, the Court held that proceeds of a fraudulent preference action recovered by a trustee in bankruptcy under section 95 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) may be subject to the rights of secured creditors, to the extent secured creditors had rights in the collateral in question at the time of the impugned transaction.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada1 ("Saulnier"), an important case involving fishing licences in the context of a secured lending transaction and an assignment in bankruptcy. This case contains what we believe is significant commentary on classifying certain governmental licences as "property" under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") and "personal property" under the Personal Property Security Act (Nova Scotia) (the "Nova Scotia PPSA").

The recent decision inErnst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) analyzed the criteria for establishing voidable transfers at undervalue under section 96 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA), with a particular focus on the application of “corporate attribution” in the context of insolvency.

​When a commercial tenant goes bankrupt, the respective rights of landlords and trustees can be complex to sort out. Yet, as illustrated by recent Ontario Superior Court decision 7636156 Canada Inc. v. OMERS Realty Corporation, 2019 ONSC 6106, this determination can have important ramifications on the assets available for distribution to creditors.

In 2002 the Supreme Court of Canada, in Bank of Montreal v Dynex Petroleum Ltd, 2002 SCC 7 (Dynex) affirmed that gross overriding royalty interests (GOR) could constitute interest in land provided the parties so intended and that intention was sufficiently evidenced in an agreement.