With the growing concern over the environmental impacts of commercial activity, provinces have enacted and expanded environmental legislation in order to hold companies accountable for the costs of remediating the environmental harm they cause. However, regulators have struggled with how to hold companies accountable for environmental harm when they become insolvent. For many years, clean-up obligations have been treated as unsecured claims lacking priority over secured claims.

With the growing concern over the environmental impacts of commercial activity, provinces have enacted and expanded environmental legislation in order to hold companies accountable for the costs of remediating the environmental harm they cause. However, regulators have struggled with how to hold companies accountable for environmental harm when they become insolvent. For many years, clean-up obligations have been treated as unsecured claims lacking priority over secured claims. On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court o

The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal brought by three municipalities (the “Municipalities”) seeking status as secured creditors entitled to special priority for payment of linear property taxes.

The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal brought by three municipalities (the "Municipalities") seeking status as secured creditors entitled to special priority for payment of linear property taxes.

In Northern Sunrise County v Virginia Hills Oil Corp, 2019 ABCA 61, the primary issue was whether the Municipal Government Act ("MGA") grants to an Alberta municipality a special lien for linear property taxes, which lien ranks senior in priority to contractual security interests if the tax debtor is not bankrupt or subject to other insolvency proceedings.

Background

A five judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed an appeal brought by the Alberta Energy Regulator ("AER") and the Orphan Well Association from the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124 ("Redwater"). The case has been one of the most closely watched by the Canadian oil and gas industry in decades.

The dispute in Redwater centred on the renunciation of uneconomic oil and gas wells, pipelines and facilities that are subject to provincial abandonment and remediation liabilities.

A five judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed an appeal brought by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) and the Orphan Well Association from the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124 (“Redwater”). The case has been one of the most closely watched by the Canadian oil and gas industry in decades.

We previously wrote about the decision in The Queen v. Callidus Capital Corporation of the Federal Court of Appeal in our Restructuring and Tax Bulletin, here. The decision, released in July 2017, was overturned on November 8, 2018 by the Supreme Court of Canada, offering sought-after certainty for secured lenders. Access the ruling here.

The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1966[1] marks the first time the BC Supreme Court has rejected an application to wind-up a strata corporation pursuant to Bill 40 under the Strata Property Act

The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal brought by the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Orphan Well Association from the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation. A majority of the panel held that the provisions of the provincial legislation governing certain actions of licensees of oil and gas assets do not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act over provincial legislation where the governing provisions conflict.

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.