Weighing in at the intersection of bankruptcy law and the doctrine of subrogation, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that insurers are not entitled to commence subrogated claims in the name of bankrupt insureds.

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.

In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek ⁷ where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.

Shareholders often overlook the need to properly document loan advances in their haste to provide funds to the company, without being aware of the significant consequences that can result.

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.

In a recent edition of Fully Secured (September 29, 2011 – Volume 2, No. 3), the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Indalex Limited was discussed, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a statutory deemed trust claim arising out of a pension plan wind-up deficiency ranked in priority to debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing.

There have been several recent developments with respect to this decision since the date of that publication.

In 7636156 Canada Inc. (Re)[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal ("OCA") confirmed the right of a commercial landlord to draw on a letter of credit given as security pursuant to a lease, even when the draw takes place after the termination of the lease by the tenant's trustee in bankruptcy.

In the case of 1842752 Ontario Inc. v. Fortress Wismer 3-2011 Ltd.[1](the "Fortress Case"), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a judgment creditor is not entitled to enforce a writ of seizure and sale against a registered owner that beneficially holds land in trust for a judgment debtor, nor to priority over arm's length construction financing.

In a decision released on March 11, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided reassurance for those in the construction industry of the effectiveness of section 9(1) of the Construction Act, RSO c C.30 (“CA”) in insolvency proceedings. This decision did not overturn the previous decision rendered in Re Veltri Metal Products Co (2005), 48 CLR (3d) 161 (Ont CA) (“Veltri”); rather, the Court of Appeal distinguished the two cases on the facts.

On June 19, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Third Eye Capital Corporation v. Ressources Dianor Inc./Dianor Resources Inc. [1], addressing the following issues: