​​​The Court of Appeal of Ontario found in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Konga that the interpretation of a guarantee is a question of mixed fact and law, entitled to deference on appeal. Further, for a guarantor to obtain a discharge from the guarantee, he must establish that the bank's demand caused the debtor's default.

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.

As we reported in our March 2017 bulletin "And then there were none; Ontario has repealed the Bulk Sales Act", the Bulk Sales Act (Ontario) (the “BSA”) was repealed as a result of the coming into force of Schedule 3 of Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act, 2017.

Le 20 février dernier, une formation de trois juges de la Cour d'appel du Québec, sous la plume du juge Paul Vézina, a confirmé le jugement de première instance de la Cour supérieure dans l'affaire Métaux Kitco Inc.1, lequel avait refusé à l'administration fiscale la possibilité d'opérer compensation entre une dette fiscale existant avant les procédures de restructuration et des crédits et remboursements de taxes sur intrants (« CTI/RTI ») en TPS et TVQ ayant

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

37268

Joseph Palazzo v. Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada

(Que.)

Civil Procedure – Appeal – Prescription

The Applicant was an employee of the Respondent from 1968 to 2009. In 1980, the Applicant began selling life insurance and investment products of the Respondent until his retirement on May 1, 2009. During his employment as a sales representative, the Applicant was paid on a commission basis only.

Dans l’arrêt Arrangement relatif à Métaux Kitco inc. 2017 QCCA 268 rendu le 20 février dernier, la Cour d’appel du Québec a confirmé la décision de la Cour supérieure interdisant l’Agence du revenu du Québec (« ARQ ») de compenser des crédits et des remboursements de taxes sur les intrants (« CTI/RTI ») réclamés prétendument illégalement par Métaux Kitco inc. (« Kitco ») avant le dépôt d’un avis d’intention avec des CTI/RTI engendrés après le dépôt d’un avis d’intention.

In its decision in Arrangement relatif à Métaux Kitco inc. 2017 QCCA 268, rendered on February 20th, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld a Quebec Superior Court decision prohibiting Revenu Québec (“RQ”) from setting off input tax credits and refunds (“ITC/ITRs”) allegedly claimed illegally by Kitco Metals Inc. (“Kitco”) before filing a notice of intention to make a proposal to its creditors, against ITC/ITRs generated after the filing of the notice.

The restructuring of Sanjel Corporation and its affiliates (previously discussed here) continues to provide interesting developments on the application and interpretation of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.