This past year has featured a diverse range of consequential, precedent-setting insolvency disputes across various industries, reflecting both the breadth of challenges facing Canadian businesses and the adaptability of Canada’s insolvency framework in resolving these issues. The most consequential decisions in which we have been involved are described below, alongside key takeaways for stakeholders participating in insolvency proceedings in 2026 and beyond.
The collapse of The Lion Electric Company and its affiliates (Lion Electric) has attracted considerable attention as a sign of potential trouble in Québec’s manufacturing and electric vehicle sectors1.
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench (the Court) has delivered an important decision in the insolvency proceedings of Wolverine Energy and Infrastructure Inc. (WEI), voiding insider payments and imposing personal liability on a former executive. The ruling highlights the significant risks associated with insider transactions during financial distress and clarifies how courts apply statutory remedies under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), the Fraudulent Preferences Act (FPA), and the Statute of Elizabeth (SOE).
Historically, a GP’s source of liquidity was self-generated. Whether through management fees or house carry, sources of cash for a sponsor came from within the sponsor’s structure. This, not surprisingly, places inherent limitations on the manager’s ability to grow the business, facilitate succession planning and achieve other strategic objectives.
Insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) are generally practical and solution-oriented. Creativity is rewarded and, if there is a conflict between insolvency law’s practical focus on achieving desirable commercial outcomes on the one hand, and the requirements—often technical in nature—under other statutes such as the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) on the other, courts often apply insolvency law in a manner that gives priority to achieving those commercial outcomes.
Appeals under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) generally result in an automatic stay of the order under appeal—a potentially costly and disruptive outcome. Accordingly, the BIA requires by default that an interested party first seek leave to appeal a lower court decision unless its appeal meets a set of prescribed circumstances that appears broad but, in practice, has been construed very narrowly by the courts (i.e., making it difficult to obtain leave to appeal). In Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
Fund sponsors continue to face a challenging fundraising market and many are sensitive to increasing investor demand for liquidity. Higher interest rates and public market dislocation continue to make capital-raising difficult, while decreased fund distributions are limiting capital available for new commitments, leading investors to prioritize liquidity and invest cautiously.
The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (the Court) recently revisited the stringent boundaries on the types of claims that can be brought against court-appointed officers. The decision in North v Davison, 2024 ABKB 242 (the Decision) highlighted the protective measures that courts employ to safeguard the integrity and function of receivership proceedings against unfounded or speculative claims. In the Decision, the Court struck down a counterclaim against Ernst & Young Inc.
Corporate governance practices are truly put to the test in two instances: 1) the commencement of litigation; and 2) entry into the zone of insolvency. The latter (distressed circumstances) increases the likelihood of the former (claims against directors and officers).
When distressed circumstances do arise, it is critical to ensure that best practices are in place and adhered to. Often, there may be little time in a crisis to consider and adopt new governance practices given the speed at which events may unfold. Directors need to get it right, and quickly.
In insolvency proceedings, it can be difficult to navigate how to close out a transaction with an insolvent counterparty without suffering excessive collateral damage. One question that may arise in this process is whether a contract with the insolvent party can be relied upon. Canadian insolvency laws provide special treatment for a certain category of contracts called eligible financial contracts (EFCs).