The Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) has overturned the decision rendered by a majority of the Federal Court of Appeal (the FCA) in Callidus Capital Corporation v Her Majesty the Queen.

The case originated out of a motion filed in the Federal Court (the FC) by Callidus Capital Corporation (Callidus) to determine the following question of law:

There were six substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week. There were many criminal decisions released.

In Wall v. Shaw, the Court determined that there is no limitation period to objecting to accounts in an application to pass accounts in an estates matter. A notice of objection is not a “proceeding” within the meaning of the Limitations Act, 2002.

On November 8, 2018, in a decision delivered unanimously from the bench, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the Crown’s superpriority over unremitted Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) is ineffective against a secured creditor who received, prior to a tax debtor’s bankruptcy, proceeds from that taxpayer’s assets.1

Where there is a bankruptcy, there is no personal liability of a secured creditor to the Crown for funds received prior to the bankruptcy from a realization of assets that were subject to the deemed trust under the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (“ETA”).

Factual Background

Recent decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta have put into question the priority of municipal property taxes in insolvency proceedings. Two such decisions are the subject of pending appeals. A third recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta has confirmed the scope of a special lien for municipal property taxes. This article is the first in a series addressing these issues.

Virginia Hills: Linear Tax Claims

En cas de faillite, le créancier garanti n’est pas responsable envers le fisc pour les sommes perçues avant la faillite provenant de la réalisation de biens faisant partie d’une fiducie présumée créée aux termes de la Loi sur la taxe d’accise.

Rappel des faits et contexte

One of the most delicate balancing acts that the Courts are asked to perform in Canada is balancing all of the disparate and competing interests in an insolvency process. The Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to review one iteration of this balancing act in Reciprocal Opportunities Incorporated v.

Secured creditors can breathe a sigh of relief. We have received word that the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed the appeal from the bench in Canada v. Callidus Capital Corporation (“Callidus”).

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Ledcor case (which held that “resultant damage” arising from faulty workmanship is not excluded by the faulty workmanship exclusion in a builders’ risk policy) was held not to allow for coverage for “resultant damage” arising from faulty workmanship under an all-risks property policy.

Early last week PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy for Sequoia Resources Corp., filed a statement of claim against Perpetual Energy Inc., attempting to unwind an asset sale from Oct. 1, 2016. Alternatively, PwC is seeking $217-million in damages. Along with Perpetual, PwC has named certain subsidiaries and its CEO, Susan Riddell Rose, as defendants.

In its statement of claim, the plaintiff is relying upon legal principles associated with oppression, reviewable transactions in insolvencies and regulatory law in support of its action.