On December 19, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “RMV”) cannot deny vehicle permits to individuals on account of pre- bankruptcy debts owing to the ETR Concession Company Limited (the  “ETR”). Based  on the  intent and  purpose of federal bankruptcy law to permit debtors to obtain a “fresh start,” it was concluded that the provincial act establishing the ETR conflicts with bankruptcy law and was, as a result, unconstitutional in part.

Background

A recent decision at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) brought to the fore the role of fairness opinions in solvent arrangement transactions. In Re ChampionIron Mines Limited (Champion) the court approved the arrangement but deemed the fairness opinion inadmissible on the basis that it failed to disclose the reasons underlying its conclusion.

In Susi v. Bourke, 2014 O.J. No. 11

A Summary

In Susi v. Bourke, [2014] OJ No 11, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that when all of the directors of a corporation fail to comply with their fiduciary duties, none of them can seek a remedy for oppression.

Norton Rose Fulbright’s Employment and Labour Team in Montréal raised a preliminary objection against an arbitrator’s jurisdiction on the basis of orders rendered pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA“), which was upheld and led to the dismissal of the grievance.

In Ontario (Training, Colleges and Universities) v.

If Peter Morton and Cinitel Corp. had their way, every lender would have a distinct duty to a guarantor to permit the sale of a defaulting borrower’s assets as a going concern. In their view, a lender should be required to maximize its recovery from the borrower and to minimize any claim made on a guarantee. Fulfilling that duty would also obligate a lender to keep funding a borrower while that asset sale was negotiated and completed. It is enough to make any lender cringe.

Fortunately, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Morton and Cinitel’s view of the lending world.

On October 3, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued two significant decisions1 on the interplay between provincial environmental remediation and federal insolvency orders. The cases are of interest to environmental and insolvency lawyers across Canada. They are equally of interest to taxpayers who foot remediation costs shifted through insolvency.

Background

The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in msi Spergel Inc. v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550 (“msi Spergel”) confirms that the Court will not suspend, extend or otherwise vary the general two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 (the “Limitations Act”) unless there is express statutory authority to do so.

Directors and officers beware. Former directors and officers of bankrupt companies can now be found liable to pay clean-up costs for contaminated sites in Ontario, even if the contamination occurred before their tenure.