Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 11, 2022. There were many interesting cases this week.

In Humphrey v. Mene Inc., the Court allowed an appeal in part and reduced damages for wrongful dismissal from twelve months to seven as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to reasonably mitigate by accepting another comparable position seven months after she had been dismissed. The awards of aggravated and punitive damages were upheld.

Good afternoon.

Please find our summaries of the civil decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 4, 2022.

On 28 June 2022 the Insolvency Service published a report it had commissioned from RSM UK to assess the impact that CVAs were having on commercial landlords (the “Report”).

Summary

The Insolvency Service has released its report on CVAs (the “Report”), which was commissioned in response to the significant concerns raised by the commercial property sector in recent years and the legal challenges launched by landlords against a number of CVAs.

引言

近年来，伴随着经济形势与产业政策的变化，融资租赁成为了争议高发领域，并且日益呈现出争议案件数量多、标的金额大等特点。以上海地区为例，根据上海高级人民法院发布的《2020年度上海法院金融商事审判情况通报》，在2020年上海法院受理的一审金融商事案件中，融资租赁合同纠纷的案件数量位居第三，同比上升65.93%，争议标的金额则位居第二，仅次于金融借款合同纠纷。而在诸多争议之中，对于租赁物所有权的保护始终是多年以来困扰我国融资租赁从业者、司法裁判者甚至是立法者的一大难题。[1]

本篇中，我们将结合过往在融资租赁业务领域的执业经验，从程序及实体两个角度，分别梳理《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称“《民法典》”）生效前的存量项目中，出租人在租赁物被承租人擅自处分后可能面临的“困局”及“破局”进路。而在下篇中，我们将基于后《民法典》时代法律条文与配套制度的更迭，进一步对融资租赁行业实践的变化作出解读与研判。

一、 “困局”：租赁物被承租人擅自处分，出租人的物权保障岌岌可危

The company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is an insolvency process that has raised significant concern amongst commercial property owners in recent years about their use by tenant companies to change lease terms, write off arrears and recalculate future rental liabilities. Some property owners feel that they have been unfairly targeted by CVAs, particularly in the retail and casual dining sectors, to the benefit of other creditors.

Overview

Recently, in Shady Bird Lending, LLC v. The Source Hotel, LLC (In re The Source Hotel, LLC), Case No. 8:21-cv-00824-FLA (C.D. Ca. June 8, 2022), the Central District of California District Court adopted the majority view that a non-income producing property could be a “single asset real estate,” or SARE, debtor. The district court held that a hotel, which was not yet producing income, met the definition of a SARE.

Background

A prohibition order in place on a development in Hassall Street, Parramatta, NSW, serves as a useful reminder for developers, builders and financiers of the importance of complying with the requirements of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBP Act) and the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (NSW) (RAB Act) (together, the Acts) (and the consequences of non-compliance).

This case was an emergency interlocutory application by Mr Hennessy to prevent a receiver – Ken Tyrrell – and Everyday Finance DAC (the "Defendants") from taking possession, marketing and/or selling charged lands in County Laois (the "charged lands" or the "lands").

This question had until recent times been a conundrum of modern fixed charge receiverships (as well as receivers appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925), because in the scenario of the receiver seeking to step in and deal with property, the receiver is also said to be the borrower's deemed agent. It therefore begged a thorny question of the receiver, about how to reconcile being on both sides of the possession action.