Currently, neither the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act nor the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act defines “director.” However, pending legislative amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) will include an expansive definition of “director” that includes any person “occupying the position of director,” regardless of his or her formal title.

The priorities of some pension claims on bankruptcy and receivership changed as a result of amendments effective July 8, 2008 to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act R.S.C. (Canada) (the “BIA”).  

Priority Before the Amendments

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada on October 24, 2008. The decision provides welcome clarification concerning the nature of government licenses and confirms that at least certain kinds of licenses constitute property for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and for the purposes of Canadian personal property security legislation. The decision is also important because it takes a purposive and commercial approach to the interpretation of bankruptcy and personal property security legislation.

In Kerr Interior Systems Ltd., the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta discussed a number of issues which arose as a result of two creditors registering builders liens against a third party’s property in Saskatchewan.

In the recent decision of Re WorkGroup Designs Inc.,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the "BIA") which relate to valuing and determining the claims of secured creditors in proposal proceedings under the BIA.

Background

For the first time ever in Canada, super-priority rights have been given to employees which will take priority over existing secured creditors.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") was unperfected as against a trustee in bankruptcy (the "Trustee"), because RBC failed to comply with section 48(3) of the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the "PPSA") by failing to file a financing change statement to reflect a change of the debtor’s name after assets of the debtor were sold by a court appointed interim receiver.

“Bankruptcy” is commonly used to describe a number of legal situations involving a tenant’s financial distress. But with the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants determined by the true course of action taken, it pays for both sides to get the facts.

In Father & Son Investments Inc. v. Maverick Brewing Corp. (2007), 2007 CarswellAlta 1452 (Alta. Q.B.), Maverick Brewing Corporation (“Maverick”) operated a brewery in Edmonton in space leased from Five Oaks Inc. (“Five Oaks”). The two major creditors of Maverick were Father & Son Investments Inc. (“Father & Son”) and Five Oaks. Pursuant to a postponement and subordination of security interest document, Five Oaks had priority over Father & Son to the assets of Maverick.

Ontario has introduced a series of significant amendments to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the PPSA). The last major amendments to the PPSA occurred in 1989. This Osler Update highlights amendments to the PPSA that are of particular interest to court officers of insolvent enterprises and others taking or enforcing security.