Introduction

A recent decision of the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (OPC) highlights the potentially broad application of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA).1

On October 13, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the "Court of Appeal") upheld1 a CCAA judge's decision that the "interest stops rule" applies in CCAA proceedings, which significantly limits unsecured creditors' ability to recover interest accrued after the date of a debtor's insolvency.

Background

In Aventura², a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”), the Honourable Justice Penny confirmed that a bankruptcy trustee does not have the authority, pursuant to section 30(1)(k) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), to disclaim a lease on behalf of a bankrupt landlord. Rather, a trustee’s authority to disclaim a lease is limited to situations where the bankrupt is the tenant.

The Ontario Court of Appeal (Court) recently affirmed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Nortel Networks Corporation (Re) (Nortel),^[1] that the “interest stops” rule applies in proceedings unde

On October 13, 2015, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) dismissed the so-called “interest stops rule” appeal in the Nortel matter,^[1] thereby confirming that the rule applies in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). The Court’s decision also appears to eliminate any suggestion that the rule only applies to so-called “liquidating” CCAA proceedings.

Introduction

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently affirmed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in ReNortel Networks Corporation that the common law interest stops rule applies in proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. The court also clarified that parties retain the right to provide for the consensual payment of post-filing interest in a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act plan of reorganisation.

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court sheds light on when a commercial landlord is required to give consent to an assignment of lease or sublease.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 271 (Indalex), creditors and their advisors have been closely following jurisprudence which considers the scope of the decision.

On August 7, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) released its decision in Grant Forest Products Inc. v.

In a proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), a judge has discretionary powers to, among other things, order debtor companies into bankruptcy and thereby resolve priority disputes. What should be the standard of review of such discretionary decisions? Historically, the standard has been high.