Category: Bankruptcy and Insolvency Page 2 of 7

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.

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.