Category: Bankruptcy and Insolvency Page 1 of 7

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: Cameron Stephens Mortgage Capital Ltd v Conacher Kingston Holdings Inc, 2025 ONCA 732 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Automatic Right of Appeal under Section 193(c) of the BIA: The Case for a Narrow Approach in Asset Sale Decisions

Section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA) sets out four circumstances in which a party has an automatic right of appeal to a provincial appellate court from any order or decision of a judge. Where none of these enumerated grounds are engaged, a party can seek leave to appeal under section 193(e).

This post is about appeals dealing with the disposition of the debtor’s assets by trustees or receivers.

Read More

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: Williams (Re), 2025 BCSC 1128 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Disgorgement Orders as Non-Dischargeable Debt

Re Williams, 2025 BCSC 1128, deals with a debtor who, prior to his bankruptcy, was found by the British Columbia Securities Commission (the Commission) to have masterminded a Ponzi scheme. The Commission imposed a penalty on Mr. Williams and ordered him to disgorge a sum of $6.8 million, an obligation from which he later sought release upon applying for a bankruptcy discharge. The issue in this case was whether the Commission’s debt fell into one of the categories of non-dischargeable debts, namely those arising from obtaining property or service by fraudulent misrepresentation or false pretences (s 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA)).

Read More

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: My Mortgage Auction Corp (Re), 2025 BCSC 1520

PDF Version: Ponzi Scheme Payouts as BIA Preference Payments

When an insolvent debtor pays one creditor over others, it undermines the goal of ensuring a fair and equitable distribution to the bankrupt’s creditors, which is one of the goals of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA), and it disrupts the statutory scheme of distribution set out in the BIA (see my previous posts on BIA preferences here and here).

Read More

By: Jassmine Girgis

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.

Read More

By: Bayley Wachsmuth

Case Commented On: Taiga Motors Corporation et Deloitte Restructuring Inc., 2024 QCCS 4319 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Taiga Insolvency Proceedings: Reverse Vesting Orders and Wage Earner Protection Program Claims

As of June 2025, hundreds of former Taiga Corporation (Taiga) employees continue to wait for severance, after having been let go more than one year ago (see here). Within the six months preceding their Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (CCAA) application on July 10, 2024, Taiga began laying off its employees. During the CCAA proceedings, Taiga entered into a Reverse Vesting Order (RVO) to facilitate the sale of Taiga while preserving non-transferrable assets and avoiding a time-consuming vote by creditors (see here at para 17). Normally when a company lays off employees prior to entering CCAA Proceedings, the former employees can file a claim under the Wage Earners Protection Program Act, SC 2005, c 47 (WEPPA) to receive payment for eligible wages including severance pay (see recent ABlawg post here). However, when the former Taiga employees applied to WEPPA they were informed that due to the RVO the former employees were no longer eligible to claim under WEPPA.

Read More