For the first time ever in Canada, super-priority rights have been given to employees which will take priority over existing secured creditors.

In Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. v. Chiang, an Order was granted in 2006 compelling the bankrupt and others to attend for an examination by the trustee under section 163(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In 2008, the trustee applied under the same section to examine the bankrupt and others again.

Section 163(1) of the BIA provides:

In Warren v. Warren the British Columbia Supreme Court recently appointed an equitable receiver over the assets of a judgment to debtor, notwithstanding that the Plaintiff did not have any security.

Ernst & Young Inc. was appointed by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta as the Receiver and Manager of an Alberta Corporation named Klytie’s Development Inc., its Colorado subsidiary, and the two primary shareholders of the debtor companies

Typically, courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.

However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharma­ceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that the courts can adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (the "Act").

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") was unperfected as against a trustee in bankruptcy (the "Trustee"), because RBC failed to comply with section 48(3) of the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the "PPSA") by failing to file a financing change statement to reflect a change of the debtor’s name after assets of the debtor were sold by a court appointed interim receiver.

Imagine that a critical part of your business is dependent on a software program that you license from a software supplier. This scenario is not that hard to imagine, because in fact most businesses and other organizations are indeed reliant on licensed software – it is simply a fact of life in the computer age.

In Royal Bank v. 2021847 Ontario Ltd. et al. (2007), Carswell Ont. 8283, the plaintiff Royal Bank sought summary judgment against the guarantors of a credit facility it granted to 2021847 Ontario Ltd. (“2021847”). The amount the plaintiff sought against the guarantors was the deficiency remaining after the plaintiff had appointed a receiver over the assets of the debtor company. The proceeds from the realization of the receivership were insufficient to payout 2021847’s credit facility.

Ontario Courts are routinely faced with requests for Approval and Vesting Orders in connection with asset acquisitions made in the context of receivership proceedings or proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA"). Purchasers’ counsel who routinely seek these Orders for their clients seek to insulate their clients from claims made by third parties arising from the purchasers’ acquisition of the assets through the insolvency proceedings.

In the recent case of Re I. Waxman & Sons Limited (“Waxman”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reviewed the treatment in Canada of the doctrine of equitable subordination. Developed in American jurisprudence, the doctrine permits the claims of one creditor to be subordinated to the claims of another or other creditors of equal rank if circumstances warrant, on the basis of the equitable jurisdiction of the court.