Author: Jassmine Girgis Page 2 of 10

B.A. (Calgary); JD (With Distinction) (Western); LL.M. (Cambridge). Associate Professor. Member of the Alberta Bar. Please click here for more information.

Case Commented On: RPG Receivables Purchase Group Inc v American Pacific Corporation, 2025 ONCA 371

PDF Version: BIA Preferences: Rebutting the Presumption of Intention to Prefer

One of the goals of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA) is to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the bankrupt’s assets to its creditors. To that end, the BIA preference provisions allow a trustee to claw back payments made by the debtor to a creditor if the payments result in a preference to one creditor over others. The debtor can make any payments it wants while solvent, but these payments become improper if they are made when the debtor is insolvent.

Hudson’s Bay in Insolvency Proceedings: Employees’ Severance Payments & Directors’ Retention Bonuses

By Jassmine Girgis

On March 31, 2025

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Matter Commented On: Insolvency Proceedings of Hudson’s Bay Co.

PDF Version: Hudson’s Bay in Insolvency Proceedings: Employees’ Severance Payments & Directors’ Retention Bonuses

Hudson’s Bay Co. (Hudson’s Bay), founded in 1670, is the oldest company in North America. It is now, unfortunately, insolvent, and has obtained protection from its creditors under Canada’s restructuring legislation, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (CCAA) (see In Re Hudson’s Bay Company, 2025 ONSC 1530 (Re Hudson’s Bay)).

Narrow Interpretations v Commercial Realities: Striking the Right Balance in Poonian

By Jassmine Girgis

On March 17, 2025

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: Henderson v Peerani, 2024 ABCA 370 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Narrow Interpretations v Commercial Realities: Striking the Right Balance in Poonian

In the recent case of Poonian v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2024 SCC 28 (CanLII) (Poonian), the Supreme Court of Canada clarified s 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA), the false pretence and fraudulent misrepresentation exception to bankruptcy discharge. Henderson v Peerani, 2024 ABCA 370 (CanLII), is one of the first cases to deal with the same exception after Poonian.

Supreme Court of Canada Rules that Securities Commissions’ Administrative Penalties Do Not Survive Bankruptcy Discharge

By Jassmine Girgis

On September 9, 2024

In Administrative Law, Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Poonian v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2024 SCC 28 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Rules that Securities Commissions’ Administrative Penalties Do Not Survive Bankruptcy Discharge

With the release of Poonian v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2024 SCC 28 (CanLII), the Supreme Court of Canada has settled the question about the status of provincial securities commissions’ unpaid administrative penalties and discharge orders upon a bankrupt’s discharge. The Court determined that administrative penalties do not fall under the statutory exceptions in sections 178(1)(a) or (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA) meaning these penalties are discharged upon a bankrupt’s discharge. Disgorgement orders, however, are captured by the s 178(1)(e) exception, and will not be discharged.

How Qualex Restricted the Scope of Redwater

By Jassmine Girgis

On September 6, 2024

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2024 ABCA 115

PDF Version: How Qualex Restricted the Scope of Redwater

In Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2024 ABCA 115 (CanLII) (Qualex CA), the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a strong decision overturning the lower court and establishing two important points: first, the test from Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc, 2012 SCC 67 (CanLII) (the Abitibi test), which the Supreme Court of Canada applied in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (Redwater), does not apply outside of insolvency proceedings, and second, only a regulator can enforce public duties.