InRe Bock inc.¹, a recent case decided under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA"), the Superior Court of Quebec made an order reviving a dealership agreement that was purported to be validly terminated by the manufacturer prior to the commencement of any insolvency proceedings.

In a decision rendered on August 15, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Nortel denied a motion for leave to appeal in a CCAA proceeding, reiterating the stringent test for leave to appeal in such circumstances. More importantly for our purposes, the court reiterated the necessity for a motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence where the moving party seeks to rely upon such evidence.

I am tempted to draft a blog post listing the top ten ironies of bankruptcy law. There is no shortage of contenders for that list, and vying for the top spot would be the simple fact that you need a lot of money to go bankrupt. Bankruptcy (or its cousins, creditors arrangement and administration -- but not receivership, the economies of which could also feature in a blog post of its own) involves an influx of lawyers, accountants, and other professionals who negotiate and bicker their way through the company’s balance sheet, all while charging by the hour.

On September 4, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in the sentence appeal in R. v. Metron Construction Corporation¹ (“Metron”). Government prosecutors had appealed against the C$200,000 fine Metron received on July 13, 2012, after the company pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal negligence causing death.

Occupational Health and Safety Act charges could proceed against an insolvent company even though it had obtained protection from its creditors under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), an Ontario judge has decided.

Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. was charged with offences under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act in relation to two separate incidents, one in which a worker was injured in the company’s wood-handling department, and one in which a worker died after an explosion blew part of the roof off of a mill.

It has long been standard practice for Court-appointed receivers, monitors and trustees in bankruptcy to include comprehensive disclaimer language in the reports they submit to Court in connection with insolvency proceedings. The reason is simple – these reports are relied on by the Court and other parties to the proceedings, and are often prepared using unaudited and unverified information obtained from management of the debtor company.

During the spring of 2012, the Canadian Appeals Monitor posted a five-part series on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Van Breda, Black, and

Morris Kaiser’s trustee in bankruptcy, Soberman Inc., thought it smelled a rat: while claiming to be impecunious, Kaiser appeared to be living a life of ‘some means’, which included trips to casinos in the US. Kaiser claimed he was drawing advances on the credit card of a buddy, Cecil Bergman, but the trustee suspected the whole thing was a front to shield Kaiser’s assets from his creditors.

In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek ⁷ where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.

Recently, the superior court rendered a decision ¹ which clarifies the extent of the discretion a court has when asked to ratify a hypothecary creditor’s recommendation to appoint an employee of its legal counsel to act as the officer of the court entrusted with the sale by judicial authority of the collateral secured in its favour.

CONTEXT