Bankruptcy and Insolvency

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

On September 9, 2024

In Administrative Law, Bankruptcy and Insolvency

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.

Environmental Obligations Enforced Between Private Parties: The Extension of Redwater

By Jassmine Girgis

On May 15, 2023

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Oil & Gas, Property

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2023 ABKB 109 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Environmental Obligations Enforced Between Private Parties: The Extension of Redwater

The Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2023 ABKB 109 (CanLII) (Qualex) decision extends the principles from the Supreme Court’s decision in Orphan Well Association, Alberta Energy Regulator v Grant Thornton Limited and ATB Financial, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (Redwater) to a private dispute outside insolvency proceedings.

How does Bankruptcy Impact the Priority of a Writ of Enforcement’s ‘Binding Interest’?

By Jassmine Girgis

On September 23, 2022

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: MNP Ltd v Canada Revenue Agency, 2022 ABQB 320 (CanLII)

PDF Version: How does Bankruptcy Impact the Priority of a Writ of Enforcement’s ‘Binding Interest’

This case is about the priority of a writ of enforcement’s “binding interest” upon bankruptcy. As the court found here, where a writ is not fully executed as of the date of bankruptcy, the writ’s binding interest ceases to have effect, rendering the writ holder an unsecured creditor and putting it last in priority, after secured and preferred creditors.

Exemptions to the BIA “Fresh Start” Policy

By Jassmine Girgis

On January 24, 2022

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Exemptions to the BIA “Fresh Start” Policy

Case Commented On: Alberta Securities Commission v Hennig, 2021 ABCA 411 (CanLII)

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (CA) considered whether a debt fell within the exceptions contained in s 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA), and therefore survived the discharge of the bankrupt.

The CA allowed the appeal. The majority reasons were written by Justice Ritu Khullar and concurred in by Justice Jack Watson. Justice Dawn Pentelechuk wrote reasons concurring in the result.