In the recent decision of Re Rieger Printing Ink Co., Justice Pepall of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) considered the right to protection against selfincrimination in a Section 163 examination conducted under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA").

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada1 ("Saulnier"), an important case involving fishing licences in the context of a secured lending transaction and an assignment in bankruptcy. This case contains what we believe is significant commentary on classifying certain governmental licences as "property" under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") and "personal property" under the Personal Property Security Act (Nova Scotia) (the "Nova Scotia PPSA").

In Seeley (Trustee of) v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2008), the Bankruptcy Court determined that the Superintendent’s Levy was payable on the amount paid to a secured creditor by a Trustee in bankruptcy.The bankrupt made an assignment into bankruptcy. He owned a cabin which was mortgaged to the Bank.

The Trustee sent the Bank three notices requiring it to file proof of its security. The Bank did not respond.The cabin was sold and subsequently the Bank filed a Proof of Claim in the bankruptcy.

Section 147 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) provides that the Superintendent’s Levy is applied to defray the supervisory expenses of the Superintendent, will be charged on dividend payments made by the trustee.

In Re Farmpure Seeds Inc. (2008 CarswellSask. 639) the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench considered the proposal of a debtor which was conditional upon the Court approving DIP financing and a super priority charge.

The debtor company had an active business, however became insolvent as a result of rapid expansion and some improvident contracts. The debtor could not meet its immediate obligations such as payroll, and the need to pay its suppliers upon receipt of their seed product. As a result, the debtor could not maintain its business without immediate interim financing.

In the early nineties, Quebec adopted new personal property legislation under the reform of the Civil Code of Quebec (the "CCQ"). However, the CCQ incorporated language and legislation from Quebec's former personal property regime. This combination of old and new legislation has, in some cases, left remnants of formalism surrounding the creation of certain types of hypothecs (security interests). In Positron Technologies Inc.

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

In Re Norame Inc. (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 303(Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal was again called upon to consider various issues of importance to insolvency practitioners. In a decision released on April 28, 2008, Mr. Justice LaForme delivered the judgment for the Court of Appeal and in so doing dismissed the appeal of Paddon + Yorke Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Norame Inc. (the "Trustee").

In Ultra Information Systems Canada Inc. v. Pushor Mitchell LLP (2008 Carswell BC 1537 (B.C.S.C.)), one of the corporate Defendants had become bankrupt. There was an issue as to whether some of the bankrupt Defendant’s production documents were privileged. The Court considered whether the Trustee in Bankruptcy could waive the previously claimed solicitor and client privilege and therefore produce the documents.

While rarely done, section 197(3) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ( “BIA”) authorizes a court to hold a bankruptcy trustee personally liable for the costs of its conduct. The principles underlying section 197(3) were recently reviewed and discussed by one of the leading authorities on Canadian bankruptcy law, Morawetz J., in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of Greenstreet Management where the Court used its statutory discretion to award costs personally against a trustee.