In a majority two to one decision released on April 24, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal has upheld the lower court ruling in Re Redwater Energy Corporation.

Last year we reported (here) that Alberta’s Redwater Energy Corporation decision signaled good news for lenders and noteholders secured by Alberta O&G assets because the federal Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) prevailed over conflicting provisions in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”).

In a much anticipated decision, a 2-1 majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal (the ABCA) has upheld the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (ABQB) decision in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278.

In this Update

• on April 24, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench’s decision in Redwater Energy Corporation (Re), 2016 ABQB 278 (Redwater)
• reasons for the Redwater decision
• the issues in Redwater raise various important policy concerns regarding land owners, the public at large and the oil and gas industry
• background and significant implications of Redwater

Introduction

Good evening,

Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

McCarthy Tétrault’s Doing Business in Canada provides a user-friendly overview of central aspects of the Canadian political and legal systems that are most likely to affect new and established business in Canada. The newest edition includes sections on: Immigration (at page 129); Employment (at page 151); and Dispute Resolution (at page 171).

General guidance is included throughout the publication on a broad range of discussions. We also recommend that you seek the advice of one of our lawyers for any specific legal aspects of your proposed investment or activity.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released a decision allowing a certification application by a union to proceed in the face of a receivership of the employer. The decision garnered a strong dissent from Justice Lauwers, suggesting that the decision of the majority would "effect a sea change in insolvency law."

The Lightstream decision confirms that Canadian courts have the jurisdiction under the CCAA to both: (i) incorporate and apply the oppression remedy; and (ii) where appropriate, when oppressive conduct has occurred, grant an order requiring a corporation to issue additional securities. However, such jurisdiction is limited and defined by the scheme and purpose of the CCAA.

​In Re Lightstream Resources Ltd, 2016 ABQB 665 (Lightstream), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) confirmed that it had jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct while a business is restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The decision also provides insight as to when a court might exercise its equitable jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct in a CCAA proceeding.

Background

When a lender makes an interest bearing loan to a borrower for a fixed term, the contract may provide that the borrower cannot repay the principal sum before maturity. This is often referred to as a “no call” provision. The intent of this provision is to protect the lender’s expected return on its investment during the term of the contract. Otherwise, the lender could be faced with the loss of interest payments that the borrower would have otherwise paid to the lender.