Introduction and Background

The December 2009 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Peterborough (City) v. Kawartha Native Housing Society Inc. is significant in clarifying the right of the boards of directors of non-profit corporations in receivership to retain legal counsel and pay legal fees out of the corporation’s funds. The case arose out of the contested receivership of two non-profit First Nations social housing corporations.

Typically under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) when a debtor brings an application to extend the stay period, the court will grant the extension, so long as the applicant debtor is acting in good faith and with due diligence. In the vast majority of such extension applications the debtor has the support of the court appointed Monitor. The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case Re Dura Automotive Systems (Canada) Ltd.

In Capital One v. Solehdin,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized judgments of a Louisiana bankruptcy court and held that they were enforceable in Ontario. The judgments were summary judgments against guarantors under their respective guarantees. The decision is significant – it is one of the first cases where guarantors challenged the recognition and enforcement of such judgments of a foreign bankruptcy court on the basis that the foreign bankruptcy court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the judgments.

The restructuring proceedings of Canwest Publishing Inc and affiliated entities (“Canwest”) has recently provided secured lenders and particularly debtor-in-possession lenders with some food for thought.

In March of this year, four former non-unionized employees of Canwest brought a motion in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) for the appointment of representative counsel to protect the interests of themselves and similarly situated former employees in the Canwest Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) restructuring proceedings.

Ontario Court Stays Retaliatory Action brought against Bank

Financial institutions seeking to enforce a debt or guarantee through bankruptcy or other court proceedings are sometimes faced with meritless retaliatory court actions brought by debtors attempting to frustrate or further delay payment. In general, Ontario courts will not compel parties to litigate the same dispute on multiple fronts. Instead, one proceeding will be temporarily stayed pending resolution of the other where the same core issues are raised in both.

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Re Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., Justice Pepall examined the conflicting interests that arise where companies within a group of restructuring companies have made intercompany loans to one another, and where the board of directors mirror each other in each subsidiary.

In Rieger Printing Ink Co, 2009 WL 477541 (Ont S.C.J. [Commercial]), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with a party's right to protection against selfincrimination in relation to an examination held under section 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. B-3 ("BIA").

In the recent case of Re Masonite International Inc., the Ontario Superior Court approved a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), notwithstanding that certain insolvent entities were involved. This was a short but complex cross-border restructuring which commenced and was principally completed prior to the recent Canadian insolvency legislation amendments coming into force.

On July 14, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Reliance Insurance Company, an application regarding the allocation of surplus arising from the liquidation of the Canadian branch (Reliance Canada) of U.S.-based Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance U.S.), a property and casualty insurer that was itself in liquidation.