In 2021, several significant judicial decisions were rendered across Canada relevant to commercial lenders, businesses and restructuring professionals. This comprehensive report summarizes the key facts and core issues of importance in each case and provides status updates on the cases reported on in our February 2021 bulletin, Key Developments in Canadian Insolvency Case Law in 2020.

Two years into the pandemic, policymakers struggle to strike a balance between mitigating the ongoing human costs of the crisis and exacerbating the financial strain caused by economic support measures. The 2022 World Development Report (Report) considers the central role that finance will play in enabling countries to recover economically from the pandemic, which in 2020 caused the global economy to shrink by approximately 3% and led to the largest singleyear surge in global debt in decades.

“Retail apocalypse” was the phrase coined to describe the anticipated demise of the brick-and-mortar retail store in the face of the unparalleled convenience of online shopping and other electronic commerce. Over the past decade, in response to the challenges faced by the changing retail landscape, many shopping centres tried to “e-proof” their properties by emphasizing in-person experiences that can be provided through salons, arcades, movie theatres and restaurants.

Reverse vesting orders (or “RVOs”) have become an increasingly popular and useful tool for maximizing recovery in complex insolvencies in Canada, particularly in circumstances where traditional alternatives of asset sales or restructuring plans are not effective or practical. RVOs are very attractive to purchasers of distressed businesses because they can efficiently preserve the value of permits, tax losses and other assets which cannot be easily transferred to a purchaser through an asset transaction.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in Re Harte Gold Corp.,^[1]issued its first published decision on the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) finding that the

Due to a number of factors, including the extent of available capital in the markets and the continued backstop provided by government programs designed to blunt the economic effects of the pandemic, 2021 was not the apocalypse many were predicting. Nevertheless, Canadian restructuring professionals and courts continued to confront and overcome issues in a number of important areas, including extraordinary first day relief, good faith and lack thereof, eligible financial contracts and liquidating Companies’ Creditors Arrangements Act (CCAA) proceedings.

Whether—and in what circumstances—a debtor should pay creditors a make-whole premium continues to be litigated in bankruptcy courts. Last week, as reported by Bloomberg, Judge Dorsey (Delaware) ruled that the debtor – Mallinckrodt Plc – did not need to pay a make whole premium to first lien lenders in order to reinstate such obligations under the debtor’s chapter 11 plan.

Many describe the United States as Canada's most important trade partner. Cross-border insolvency proceedings between the two jurisdictions are frequent and the recognition by one country's court of the other's bankruptcy orders is an important tool in facilitating the restructuring of companies with operations that spread across North America. A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (leave to appeal of which was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada) invites us to reflect on the delicate balance between comity for foreign orders and Canada's sovereignty over domestic laws.

Suppliers and subcontractors in the construction industry should be mindful of a recent unreported decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In Carillion Canada Inc. (Re), the Court held that an automatic cash sweep of Carillion’s Ontario bank account rid the funds of their trust character leaving Carillion’s subcontractors in Canada with no proprietary claim to $22 million sitting in an overseas bank account maintained with a global bank (the “Bank”).

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of June 14, 2021.

In Kelava v. Spadacini, the Court found that a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court has the jurisdiction to make a representation order relying on Rule 12 of the ordinary Rules of Civil Procedure by analogy. The overriding consideration in Small Claims Court matters is access to justice.