Tag: BIA

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CONSUMER PROPOSAL CALCULATOR REVIEW FOR YOU

consumer proposal calculator

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this consumer proposal calculator Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the podcast

Introduction

A consumer proposal calculator is important to figure out what sort of debt settlement plan should be offered to your creditors. But to have a truly successful one, you really need clear language. In Brandon’s Blog, I review a recent court case that explains why.

Shelly Gail Corriveau bankruptcy

I recently read the Reasons for Decision dated June 13, 2019 by Registrar in Bankruptcy L.A. Smart of Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. This case is in the matter of the bankruptcy of Shelly Gail Corriveau. The case reference is Corriveau (Re), 2019 ABQB 438 (CanLII).

Ms. Corriveau filed an assignment in bankruptcy in April 2012. She had unsecured creditors of roughly $73,000. The reason for her insolvency was stated as offering monetary help to her child’s business. She was by all accounts a perfect example of an honest but unfortunate debtor. At the time of the bankruptcy, her only asset was her house.

In June 2012, Ms. Corriveau got a gift from her mom of $46,000. It featured instructions that $6,000 of those funds be utilized for children and certain other matters. She spent the $6,000 as instructed, with the balance of the $40,000 being paid to her licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) (the Trustee) for the benefit of her creditors.

The home was sold in October 2012. From the sale, she received her provincial exemption of $40,000 with the balance of $3,916.21 being paid to her bankruptcy estate.

Ms. Corriveau files a consumer proposal

On May 12, 2013, Ms. Corriveau advised her Trustee she had received an inheritance of $15,000 from her Mother’s estate. On May 26, 2013, Ms. Corriveau submitted a consumer proposal. The Trustee served as the Administrator of the consumer proposal.

The proposal in paragraph 4 states:

“4. That the following payments be made to [Name omitted to not embarrass the guilty] Trustee in Bankruptcy, the administrator of the consumer proposal, for the benefit of the unsecured creditors:

Proposal payments to total $10,000.00. The of (sic) funds will be provided to the Administrator as follows – $300.00 filing fee to be paid at time of filing and then a lump sum payment of $9,700.00 due 60 days after the proposal is court approved (all payments to be made within the 60 months proposal period)

The debtor reserves the right to accelerate payments should funds become available.

*** NOTE *** – There will be a significant dividend paid from the bankruptcy administration.”

In accordance with the requirements of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA), the consumer proposal Canada read that the payments must be completed within 60 months.

The Trustee recommended acceptance of the proposal. In his report to creditors he stated:

“This proposal will provide the debtor with relief and allow the debtor’s affairs to be restructured in an orderly fashion. It will allow the debtor to annul her bankruptcy and provide for a greater return to the creditors when compared to the bankruptcy option.”

The consumer proposal was deemed accepted by the creditors and approved by the Court. Ms. Corriveau made all the required payments and received her Certificate of Full Performance on August 2, 2013.

Have you “Noted” the problem yet?

Under the BIA, a bankrupt is allowed to lodge a proposal with the Trustee; either a consumer proposal or a Division I Proposal. In either format, it is a debt settlement plan that the bankrupt is proposing for acceptance by the debtor’s creditors. By definition, if the proposal is fully carried out, then the person or company’s bankruptcy is annulled.

When bankruptcy is annulled, it is declared to have had no legal existence. It is as if it never happened. The annulment of the bankruptcy takes place upon the approval or deemed approved by the court of the consumer proposal. There will never be a distribution to the creditors from the bankruptcy administration. The Trustee, in this case, did not issue any funds from the bankruptcy, yet.

So the Note that the Trustee added, “There will be a significant dividend paid from the bankruptcy administration.” is problematic. Actually, it is more than problematic. It is just plain wrong.

Now the Trustee wishes to complete the bankruptcy administration. The Trustee submits its Statement of Receipts and Disbursements as required to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) for approval. This issue came before the Court because of the OSB’s unfavourable comment letter dated June 15, 2018.

The Court’s analysis

Section 66.4(2) of the BIA states:

“Where consumer debtor is bankrupt

(2) Where a consumer proposal is made by a consumer debtor who is a bankrupt,

(a) the consumer proposal must be approved by the inspectors, if any, before any further action is taken thereon;

(b) the consumer debtor must have obtained the assistance of a trustee who shall act as administrator of the proposal in the preparation and execution thereof;

(c) the time with respect to which the claims of creditors shall be determined is the time at which the consumer debtor became bankrupt; and

(d) the approval or deemed approval by the court of the consumer proposal operates to annul the bankruptcy and to revest in the consumer debtor, or in such other person as the court may approve, all the right, title and interest of the trustee in the property of the consumer debtor, unless the terms of the consumer proposal otherwise provide.”

There is a similar provision for Division I Proposals.

The Court looked at the:

  • Statute
  • wording of the consumer proposal
  • Trustee’s report to the creditors on the consumer proposal; and the
  • Trustee’s actions in administering the proposal.

The Court had to decide if the Note was a term of the proposal or not. The Registrar took all factors into consideration, including that the Trustee issued to Ms. Corriveau the certificate evidencing full completion of the proposal upon her payment of $10,000.

The Registrar decided that the Note was an unfortunate error and that the only intention was for the creditors to share in the distribution from the consumer proposal with a gross value of $10,000.

Now for the treatment of the funds collected by the Trustee under the bankruptcy that is now annulled. The Registrar further concluded that consumer proposals that purport to also include a distribution from the funds held in the bankruptcy administration, must include clear and precise language in the proposal. The Registrar said that the Trustee failed to do so.

Therefore, the Registrar concluded that subject to any entitlement to fees by the Trustee from the bankruptcy administration, the funds held in the annulled bankruptcy are Ms. Corriveau’s property and should be returned to her. Costs of the application will be dealt with at the taxation of the Trustee’s account. The Trustee was directed to arrange a suitable date for that taxation to proceed before that Registrar.

Consumer proposal calculator summary

A proposal must offer the creditors a better result than what they would get in a person or company’s bankruptcy. So although a consumer proposal calculator is important, I think clear language is more important.

Are you in financial distress? Do you not have sufficient funds to pay your commitments as they come due?

Call the Ira Smith Team today so we can remove the anxiety, stress, pain and discomfort from your life that your money troubles have created. With the distinctive roadmap, we establish simply for you, we will quickly return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

As a Trustee, we are the only experts recognized, licensed and supervised by the federal government to give insolvency recommendations and to carry out insolvency procedures. A consumer proposal is a federal government authorized debt negotiation strategy to do that. We will assist you to choose what is best for you to rid yourself of your debt problems.

Call the Ira Smith Team today. We have years as well as generations of experience helping people and companies searching for debt restructuring, a debt negotiation strategy, or a consumer proposal Ontario to AVOID bankruptcy. You can have a no-cost evaluation so we can aid you to repair your financial problems. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will let you return to a brand-new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

INSOLVENT MEANING RESTORED IN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

insolvent meaning

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Insolvent Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast

Introduction

On November 28, 2018, I published my Brandon’s Blog titled “INSOLVENT DEFINITION: A NEW FOCUS FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE”. I wrote about a then recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Kormos v. Fast, 2018 ONSC 6044 (CanLII). In that decision, the Judge gave a new twist on deciding whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Fast was insolvent.

If they were found to not be insolvent, their respective consumer proposal and bankruptcy filings would be annulled. In that event, Mr. and Mrs. Kormos would be able to continue enforcing their judgement against Mr. and Mrs. Fast. If unsuccessful in annulling the filings, then their only remedy would be to file a proof of claim in each insolvency proceeding. That would result in a payment far less than what might otherwise be available.

The lower court ruling

Mr. and Mrs. Kormos submitted evidence that the Fast’s assets had a value greater than their total liabilities. They submitted that therefore, Mr. and Mrs. Fast was not insolvent and should not have been able to file under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

The evidence submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kormos was not challenged. However, the Judge seized upon the fact that the income and expense statement of each of Mr. and Mrs. Fast indicated that on a monthly basis, their income was much less than their expenses. The Judge, therefore, concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Fast was insolvent and their separate insolvency filings should not be annulled. Accordingly, he dismissed the application by Mr. and Mrs. Kormos.

The appeal

Mr. and Mrs. Kormos did not believe that this ruling was either fair or appropriate. Therefore, they appealed the Judge’s decision with respect to Mrs. Fast only to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. On May 23, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its unanimous decision in Kormos v. Fast, 2019 ONCA 430.

The position of Mr. and Mrs. Kormos was that the Judge erred in dismissing their application by not annulling Mrs. Fast’s assignment in bankruptcy and not deciding that her filing was a misuse of the bankruptcy procedure. They further submitted that therefore, the Judge legitimized an unjustified technique to protect the equity in Mrs. Fast’s home.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. and Mrs. Kormos. They stated that the lower court erred in failing to decide that Mrs. Fast was not an insolvent person. It is for that reason, it was not necessary for the Court of Appeal to decide if her filing was a misuse of the bankruptcy scheme and procedure.

The Court of Appeal Judges determined that on the day of her bankruptcy, Mrs. Fast was not an “insolvent person” as that term is specified under s. 2 of the BIA. Her assets substantially went beyond and were readily available to pay off all of her liabilities.

Apart from the unexplained regular monthly cash deficiency, there was no proof that she could not satisfy or had actually stopped paying her liabilities as they normally came due. Instead, the undisputed proof was that she could. The only single item submitted as proof of any kind of financial hardship was that Mrs. Fast had not paid the debt owed to Mr. and Mrs. Kormos under their judgement.

The Court’s power for bankruptcy annullment

Under s. 181(1) of the BIA, a court might annul a bankruptcy order if it feels that it ought not to have actually been made. An annulment will be approved where it is revealed either:

  1. the bankrupt was not an insolvent individual when he or she made the assignment in bankruptcy, or
  2. the bankrupt abused the procedure of the court or performed a fraud on his or her creditors.

What is an insolvent person?

Section 2 of the BIA specifies an “insolvent person” as:

“insolvent person means a person who is not bankrupt and who resides, carries on business or has property in Canada, whose liabilities to creditors provable as claims under this Act amount to one thousand dollars, and

(a) who is for any reason unable to meet his obligations as they generally become due,

(b) who has ceased paying his current obligations in the ordinary course of business as they generally become due, or

(c) the aggregate of whose property is not, at a fair valuation, sufficient, or, if disposed of at a fairly conducted sale under legal process, would not be sufficient to enable payment of all his obligations, due and accruing due;”

Mrs. Fast plainly did not meet any of the requirements to be considered insolvent. The lower court erred by ignoring Mrs. Fast’s capacity to satisfy her liabilities and her accessibility to considerable assets.

On the day of her bankruptcy, Mrs. Fast’s real value of her assets over her liabilities, including her share in the value of the real estate, was $417,581.24. The debt owing to Mr. and Mrs. Kormos under their judgement was $25,565.64 plus interest. Therefore, she definitely was not insolvent.

Out and out lies

Mrs. Fast was motivated to take the actions she did because Mr. and Mrs. Kormos was beginning to execute on their judgement and there was real value in the real estate to eventually get paid from. So, Mrs. Fast lied on her sworn statement of affairs she completed with her licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (LIT). She also manufactured an income and expense statement to show that on a cash basis, she suffered a monthly loss.

It is obvious that first, her LIT did insufficient work to establish the bona fides of the values Mrs. Fast used in her bankruptcy filing. Second, the lower court Judge ignored what should have been obvious. Mrs. Fast should not have been allowed to file an assignment in bankruptcy. At least now we are back to the tried and true definition of an insolvent person with clarity from the Ontario appellate court.

The Court of Appeal ordered the annulment of Mrs. Fast’s bankruptcy. They also awarded costs to Mr. and Mrs. Kormos on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $2,000, including disbursements and HST.

Are you insolvent?

Are you unable to pay your debts as they come due? Are your bills past due and you don’t know how you are going to pay them? Is the true value of your assets less than what you owe to your creditors? If so, then you are insolvent, and we can help end your pain and anxiety.

A LIT is the only insolvency expert accredited, licensed and supervised by the federal government to handle debt restructuring. As a LIT, our personalized strategy will assist you to know all your alternatives. The alternative you choose based on our recommendations will take away the stress and pain you are feeling because of your debt problems.

Nobody wants to visit a bankruptcy trustee. However, the Ira Smith Team has decades and generations of experience people and companies in financial trouble. We will treat you with the respect and dignity that you deserve. Whether it is a consumer proposal debt settlement plan, a larger personal or corporate restructuring proposal debt settlement plan, or as a last resort, bankruptcy, we have the experience.

Our approach for each file is to create a result where Starting Over, Starting Now takes place. This starts the minute you are at our front door. You’re simply one phone call away from taking the necessary steps to get back to leading a healthy, balanced hassle-free life.

Call us today for your free consultation, Starting Over, Starting Now.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

RESP CONTRIBUTION NOT PROTECTED IN BANKRUPTCY

resp contribution
resp contribution

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this RESP contribution not protected in bankruptcy Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom and click on the podcast

Introduction

Many parents contribute to a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) to save for their children’s post-secondary education. Unlike a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), an RESP contribution, or the total of all contributions made by the parent(s), is subject to seizure in the bankruptcy of the owner of the RESP.

In Brandon’s Blog, I discuss the history of why an RRSP is largely exempt from seizure in a bankruptcy, while a Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) and an RESP are not. The rules governing whether an RRSP or Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF), RDSP or RESP are exempt from seizure or not is an interplay between both federal and provincial laws. As I practise in the province of Ontario, I will speak only about the Ontario situation.

resp contribution
resp contribution

RRSP or RRIF exemption

Before 2008, whether an RRSP was exempt from seizure or not relied solely upon provincial law. There was no federal law which outlined the treatment for an RRSP in bankruptcy. Effective July 2008, the assets contained in either an RRSP or a RRIF were codified in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) to be exempt from seizure, except for contributions made to an RRSP in the 12 months prior to the date of bankruptcy.

The only exception would be based on whether or not RRSPs and RRIFs were exempt from seizure under provincial law. So, in the case of Ontario, the 12-month clawback exists. The bankrupt has to pay the equivalent of the contributions made in the 12 months before the date of bankruptcy.

The reason for making this change to the BIA was because there was an inequality amongst RRSPs. If you held your RRSP at a financial institution, then it was not exempt from seizure in a bankruptcy. However, if you held your RRSP:

  • with an insurance company; AND
  • you had made an irrevocable designation that in the event of your death, the beneficiary of your plan was a spouse, child, parent or grandchild

then under the Ontario Insurance Act the entire RRSP or RRIF was exempt from seizure.

The amendment to the BIA was done for two main reasons:

  • to put all RRSPs and RRIFs on the same footing, regardless of what institution it was held with; and
  • in order to not be destitute in their fresh start that the bankruptcy system allows them to have, retired Canadians who had to go bankrupt should not lose what was probably their single largest source of retirement income as a result of their financial problems.

So before the July 2008 amendment, people who were going to file for bankruptcy and who had a sizeable RRSP held with a chartered bank, would transfer the RRSP to an insurance company and make the required beneficiary designation. Many cases were heard in bankruptcy Courts across Canada.

If the beneficiary in an insurance policy, including the RRSP or RRIF investments, was revocable, it was held that the licensed insolvency trustee (then called a bankruptcy trustee) could revoke the named beneficiary, replace it with designating the Estate as the beneficiary, and then collapsing the plan to obtain the funds.

If the beneficiary was irrevocable, then the Trustee could not collapse the investment. Rather, it would have to be 1 of the reasons why a Trustee would oppose the bankrupt’s discharge. The reason being is that the person, knowing themselves to be insolvent, transferred an asset out of the creditors’ reach for no value obtained. This was called a settlement.

The leading case which was subsequently followed by other Courts, including Ontario, was The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan case Royal Bank of Canada v. North American Life Assurance Co., 1994 CanLII 4696 (SK CA) which became known as the Ramgotra case.

The reason is that Dr. Ramgotra was bankrupt. Royal Bank was a creditor and obtained Court approval to appeal, in lieu of the Trustee, a lower Court decision on what should happen to the RRSP, turned into an RRIF, funds. The Court of Appeal determined that since Mrs. Ramgotra obtained an irrevocable interest in the property, notwithstanding the RRSP transfer was a settlement, the Trustee could not obtain the money.

resp contribution
resp contribution

RDSP and Budget 2019

An RDSP is a financial savings strategy that is planned to assist moms and dads and others build up funds for the long-term financial safety of an individual who qualifies for the disability tax credit.

Unlike RRSPs, the balance kept in RDSPs are not excluded from seizure in a bankruptcy. The reason for this is because the settlor of the RDSP may do an RDSP withdrawal of funds at any time. The theory is that funds will be withdrawn for the welfare of the disabled person. However, it is the ability to withdraw funds at any time, that renders this vehicle to not be a true legal trust.

In Budget 2019, it is proposed that RDSPs be given the identical treatment to RRSPs. The societal aim is to make sure that the needs of a disabled person are not negatively affected due to the financial problems of the person who is looking out for and financially contributing to the welfare of the disabled person. More than likely the contributor is a parent.

Budget 2019 intends to exclude RDSPs from seizure in bankruptcy, except for payments made in the 12 months prior to the date of bankruptcy. This will put in on the same footing as RRSPs.

resp contribution
resp contribution

RESPs are not exempt

The reason that RESP contribution funds are not exempt from seizure in bankruptcy is fairly simple. The child does not obtain property interest in the RESP funds as the parent can collapse the plan any time before maturity. Therefore it is not a trust or any form of transfer of property to the child. Therefore, the Trustee of a bankrupt parent who owns an RESP can collapse it.

If the parent wishes the RESP to continue and not be collapsed, satisfactory arrangements have to be made with the Trustee for the equivalent amount of funds in the RESP as at the date of bankruptcy be paid to the Trustee for the benefit of the bankruptcy Estate and the bankrupt’s creditors.

As a result of perceived inequality, on June 3, 2019, Dan Albas, Conservative MP for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola (B.C.), introduced as a private member’s bill, Bill C-453, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (property of bankrupt — registered education savings plan). This Bill intends to amend s. 67(1)‍(b.‍3) of the BIA, so that RESPs receive the same treatment as RRSPs and the treatment proposed in Budget 2019 for RDSPs.

The thrust is obviously to make sure that other than for contributions made in the 12 months before the date of bankruptcy, a parent should not lose the RESP benefits for their child’s post-secondary school education because of their bankruptcy.

As private member’s bills rarely become law, I am doubtful that this initiative, no matter how well-meaning, will pass. There may also be a societal distinction between a retiree whose income earning days are behind him or her, a disabled person who is reliant upon a trust set up for their care and benefit and an elementary or high school student’s future university or college tuition.

resp contribution
resp contribution

What about you?

Are you in financial distress? Are you worried about any RRSP, RDSP or RESP contribution? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your financial obligations as they come due? Are you worried about what will happen to you in retirement?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people looking for financial restructuring, a debt settlement plan and to AVOID bankruptcy.

As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A consumer proposal is a government approved debt settlement plan to do that. We will help you decide on what is best for you between a consumer proposal vs bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can eliminate the stress, anxiety, and pain from your life that your financial problems have caused. With the one-of-a-kind roadmap, we develop just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

resp contribution

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

OSAP BANKRUPTCY IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MIGHT THINK

OSAP bankruptcy Introduction

I have written before on the issue of the difficulty in discharging student loans through bankruptcy. Bankruptcy will certainly not release your student loans debt until you’ve been out of full or part-time studies for 7 years. It is also question and answer #8 in our TOP 20 PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY FAQS found on our main website. In Brandon’s Blog, I want to drill down into the issue of an OSAP bankruptcy.

What is OSAP?

The Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) is a financial assistance program that can assist students in spending for college or university.

OSAP provides money via:

  • Grant: cash you do not need to repay
  • Loan: a loan you are required to pay off when you’re done college or university

OSAP can assist your spending for:

  • tuition
  • books and supplies/equipment
  • student fees billed by an institution
  • living expenditures
  • childcare

Amongst the various categories of people who are not eligible for OSAP, one is those people who have filed for either personal bankruptcy or a consumer proposal. As you might imagine, the rules surrounding OSAP bankruptcy are not simple. Let’s do some drilling down now!

Students that did not get student loans before the day they declared bankruptcy or filed a consumer proposal

If the student has been discharged from bankruptcy or fully completed a consumer proposal, she or he does not require to offer any type of supporting paperwork in order for their OSAP application to be reviewed.

If the student is an undischarged bankrupt or has not completed the consumer proposal, the student must supply a letter from their licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) or consumer proposal administrator. The document must show the day the student filed for either bankruptcy or the consumer proposal and that these 2 matters have actually been or will be satisfied:

  • Ontario and Canada is not a creditor in the bankruptcy or consumer proposal as an outcome of monetary help provided via OSAP; and
  • no monetary help offered to the student via OSAP during the current OSAP year will be taken in the insolvency proceedings to pay back the creditors

Discharged and the student is not presently enrolled in studies

If the student is discharged from bankruptcy or has successfully completed a consumer proposal, his/her OSAP application will not be decided upon until the student gives evidence that they have no amount owing on any student loans.

Alternatively, if applicable, the student can show that he/she received relief in their bankruptcy by way of a court order stating that section 178(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) no longer applies to the student loans.

In this situation, the student needs to supply:

  • evidence that an order of discharge or full completion of the consumer proposal has been achieved and that 3 years have expired since that date
  • a copy of the notice of bankruptcy/consumer proposal
  • letter from the student’s bank and/or the National Student Loans Service Centre confirming there is no outstanding balance
  • any relevant court order

Discharged and continuing a program of study

If the student is discharged from bankruptcy or has successfully completed a consumer proposal, his/her OSAP application will not be decided upon until the student gives evidence that they have no amount owing on any student loans.

Alternatively, if applicable, the student can show that he/she received relief in their bankruptcy by way of a court order stating that section 178(1)(g) of the BIA no longer applies to the student loans.

In this situation, the student needs to prove that he/she meets all of the following criteria:

  • at the time the student declared bankruptcy or filed the consumer proposal, they were enrolled in an accepted program of study at an accepted school and taking the minimum called for course load
  • the student remains in the same accepted program they were in on the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date
  • the student has not had a break in studies longer than 6 months since the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date
  • it has not been greater than 3 fiscal years since the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date

In this situation, the student needs to supply:

  • evidence that an order of discharge or full completion of the consumer proposal has been achieved and that 3 years have expired since that date
  • a copy of the notice of bankruptcy/consumer proposal
  • letter from the student’s bank and/or the National Student Loans Service Centre confirming there is no outstanding balance
  • any relevant court order
  • letter from the student’s Financial Aid Office verifying that the program of study in which the student was registered at the time of the bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing, is the same as the program the student is now applying for

Undischarged bankrupt or has not yet fully completed the consumer proposal

If the student is an undischarged bankrupt or has not successfully completed a consumer proposal, the processing of the student’s OSAP application will not be completed until the student gives evidence that they have no amount owing on any student loans.

In this situation, the student needs to prove that he/she meets all of the following criteria:

  • at the time the student declared bankruptcy or filed the consumer proposal, they were enrolled in an accepted program of study at an accepted school and taking the minimum called for course load
  • the student remains in the same accepted program the were in on the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date
  • the student has not had a break in studies longer than 6 months since the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date
  • it has not been greater than 3 fiscal years since the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date

In this situation, the student needs to supply a letter from their licensed insolvency trustee or consumer proposal administrator. The document must show the day the student filed for either bankruptcy or the consumer proposal and that these 2 matters have actually been or will be satisfied:

  • Ontario and Canada is not a creditor in the bankruptcy or consumer proposal as an outcome of monetary help provided via OSAP; and
  • no monetary help offered to the student via OSAP during the current OSAP year will be taken in the insolvency proceedings to pay back the creditors

The student will also need to supply a:

  • letter from the student’s bank and/or the National Student Loans Service Centre confirming there is no outstanding balance
  • any relevant court order
  • letter from the student’s Financial Aid Office verifying that the program of study in which the student was registered at the time of the bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing, is the same as the program the student is now applying for

Summary

I hope you now understand that the whole area of OSAP bankruptcy and student loans in either a bankruptcy or consumer proposal is not as simple as you might have originally thought. This is especially the case if the student is continuing his or her studies.

Do you have too much debt? Are you in financial distress? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your financial obligations as they come due?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people looking for financial restructuring, a debt settlement plan and to AVOID bankruptcy.

As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A consumer proposal is a government approved debt settlement plan to do that. We will help you decide on what is best for you between a consumer proposal vs bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can eliminate the stress, anxiety, and pain from your life that your financial problems have caused. With the one-of-a-kind roadmap, we develop just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

osap bankruptcy

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CONSUMER PROPOSAL CANADA: A BLUEPRINT TO STOP BILL COLLECTORS

consumer proposal canada

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Consumer proposal Canada Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom and click on the podcast.

Introduction

I have written before on the concept of how a bankruptcy filing puts into place a stay of proceedings. A section of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) states that creditors are not allowed to take or continue any collection or enforcement activity against a bankrupt person or company. But what about a consumer proposal Canada? I will discuss this concept for a consumer proposal and highlight a recent case on this issue.

The federal law

Under section 69.2 (1) of the BIA, with certain limited exceptions, when a consumer proposal is filed, “…no creditor has any remedy against the debtor or the debtor’s property, or shall commence or continue any action, execution or other proceedings, for the recovery of a claim provable in bankruptcy…”.

So if the claim is one that is provable in a bankruptcy, and therefore in a consumer proposal Canada, then the creditor cannot begin or continue a lawsuit or try to enforce a judgment for the amount owed.

A recent decision from the Ontario Court confirms this law where a consumer proposal Canada will stop creditors and bill collectors from starting or continuing legal action against you.

The facts of this case

The case is Yigzaw v. Ashagrie, 2019 ONSC 2474. It is about a motion to lift the stay of proceedings to permit enforcement of an order issued against the debtors who have filed a consumer proposal.

The applicants, Philipos Yigzaw and Aster Abraham, seek to appeal an order issued by the Court on February 21, 2017 (the 2017 order). The 2017 order was gotten on the basis of summary judgment on an application started by the applicants. In their application, they sought repayment of $102,500 that they had advanced to the respondents Anaketch Ashagrie and Yilma Gari to fund a business operating under the name “Telling Roses”. They also seek an accounting of how the funds had actually been spent.

The 2017 order required Ashagrie and Gari to pay $102,500 to Yigzaw and Abraham in addition to costs of $6,250. The respondents were likewise required to provide an accounting. The Court declined to issue a certificate of pending litigation against the respondents’ residence, although a writ of execution was issued. The respondents submitted a consumer proposal the very next day.

In this enforcement motion, the applicants state that the respondents have failed to adhere to the 2017 order. They look for relief that would require Ashagrie and Gari to be examined and to pay the amount of the judgment. They also want a finding that the respondents are in contempt.

The issues for the Court to consider

The Court first considered section 69.2 (1) of the BIA I spoke about above. The Court then looked at the exception I alluded to, being Section 69.4 of the BIA.

That section says that a Court may, in certain circumstances, raise the stay to allow a creditor to pursue its rights against a debtor who has filed consumer proposal. To obtain a lifting of the stay, the creditor must persuade the Court that it is most likely to be materially prejudiced by the ongoing stay, or that lifting the stay is equitable on other grounds.

Canadian courts have held that the criteria in s. 69.4 might be fulfilled where the creditor’s debt will not be released as an outcome of the insolvency process. The types of financial obligations that are not discharged are provided in s. 178( 1) of the BIA.

They consist of a debt or obligation arising out of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity as well as a debt or obligation resulting from obtaining property or services by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation. Lifting of a stay is not a routine matter.

To succeed, the applicants have to show how they are most likely to be materially prejudiced by the stay, or that there are various other equitable grounds to raise it.

In a typical motion under s. 69.4, the applicant looking to lift the stay says that it needs to have the opportunity to prove that its accusations come from an activity provided in s. 178( 1) to ensure that it may obtain a judgment against the bankrupt or insolvent person. If successful, then that claim would survive the insolvency process.

In that normal case, the Court examines the creditor’s claims to identify if the debt, if confirmed, would be released as an outcome of the bankruptcy or proposal. Sometimes, the Court may also consider evidence submitted by the creditor.

This case is uncommon because the applicants have already gotten a judgment on their claim. They are not seeking to show their claim. They are looking to enforce the Order. So the concern the Court must think about is whether that Order was made according to a cause of action listed in s. 178( 1 ). The Judge did this by reviewing the claims and evidence before the Judge who gave judgment, his analysis, and the evidence filed in this motion.

The Court’s analysis

The Court quite properly pointed out that in order to be successful for the lifting of the stay, the applicants had to show that their debt was more than just one of a contract to lend money that was not repaid.

The Court said that looking at the application in the most charitable method possible, the claims could not support a finding that the respondents obtained property from the applicants by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation. The applicants state that their loan was conditional on the money being used for “Telling Roses”. They do not declare that they were induced to loan money to “Telling Roses” as an outcome of any type of illegal misstatement by the respondents. Likewise, the applicants do not allege that the respondents took part in any kind of deceitful acts that induced them to loan the funds. Therefore, the exception from the discharge of the debt in s. 178( 1 )( e) of the BIA was not advanced in the applicants’ claim.

The allegations in the application also do not support a finding that the participants engaged in fraudulence, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. To meet that standard it is not nearly enough for a debt to have actually been brought on by fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation. That form of criminal activity had to have occurred in the context of a fiduciary relationship.

The applicants do not declare that the respondents had a fiduciary obligation towards them. The relationship they explain with the respondents would not follow such a claim. Fiduciary relationships are unusual in arms’ length business transaction. The applicants additionally do not clearly affirm that the respondents participated in any type of scam at any point.

In reviewing the reasons given by the Judge who made the 2017 order, and in looking at all the other evidence in this motion, the Court found that it was anything more than one party loaning funds to another to start a business. The business never made a profit, it failed and therefore, could not repay the money.

The decision

Given these facts and the Court’s analysis, the Court found that the applicants could not succeed on their motion to lift the stay. Rather, the Court confirmed that the 2017 judgment could only be used as the basis for the applicants to file a proof of claim in the consumer proposal filed.

The basis for the 2017 order was a finding that the applicants lent the respondents the amount of $102,500. There is absolutely nothing in the underlying decision, or in the accusations in the application on which judgment was obtained, or in any evidence submitted in this motion, that puts the applicants’ claim in the classification of financial debts that are not released under s. 178( 1) of the BIA.

Therefore, the applicants’ motion to lift the stay under s. 69.4 of the BIA was rejected. They failed to show that they are likely to be materially prejudiced by the ongoing operation of the stay or that there are various other equitable factors that would lead to a conclusion to lift the stay.

Do you have too much debt?

Are you in financial distress? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your financial obligations as they come due?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people looking for financial restructuring, a debt settlement plan and to AVOID bankruptcy.

As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A consumer proposal is a government-approved debt settlement plan to do that. We will help you decide on what is best for you between a consumer proposal vs bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can eliminate the stress, anxiety, and pain from your life that your financial problems have caused. With the one-of-a-kind roadmap, we develop just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

ONTARIO COMMERCIAL LEASE AGREEMENT: INSOLVENT COMMERCIAL TENANT

 

Introduction

I reviewed a Court decision out of Alberta that was rendered on April 4, 2019. The case is Royal Bank of Canada v. Parkland Properties Ltd., [2019] A.J. No. 412, from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. In reviewing this case about an insolvent tenant, who later became a bankrupt commercial tenant, the same would hold true in Ontario. I thought it would be helpful to review the principles in this decision, and how it would relate to an Ontario Commercial Lease Agreement.

Background

Unlike Ontario, there is no commercial tenancy act in Alberta. However, there are various other provincial statutes and a Supreme Court of Canada decision, that provides guidance for commercial landlords and tenants in Alberta.

If a commercial lessee breaches a business lease in Alberta, similar to Ontario law, a landlord has various alternatives. For a properly worded commercial tenancy agreement, the main alternatives include distraining on the tenant’s assets located on the leased commercial premises or terminating the commercial tenant’s lease. Suing for any damages, including rent arrears and for the unexpired duration of the lease, may also be part of the landlord’s rights.

Distraint or distress is the seizure of the commercial tenant’s property in order to acquire the repayment of rent arrears and various other amounts owed. Distraint normally includes the seizure of goods belonging to the lessee on the premises by the landlord to market them for the settlement of the amount owing at that point in time under the lease.

In a properly conducted distraint, no Court order is required. The landlord must also be careful when advising the tenant of the distraint, to also notify the lessee that the lease is not being ended. This way, the landlord may recoup further unpaid amounts or other damages in the future. On a practical basis, if the tenant does not bring the lease into good standing and allows the distraint to be completed, the business is probably over anyway.

Under the Alberta Civil Enforcement Regulation, the landlord would hire a bailiff to carry out the distraint and sale of the assets. This is what happened in the Royal Bank of Canada v. Parkland Properties Ltd. case I recently reviewed.

The facts and decision of the case

The facts are pretty simple. The landlord began and completed distraint proceedings against its tenant. At the time of the seizure, the insolvent tenant was $79,586 behind in rent. The landlord’s bailiff completed the sale of the assets. After taking its fee, the bailiff paid over to the landlord the amount of $223,990. The tenant became a bankrupt company after the funds were paid to the landlord.

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) was a secured creditor of the tenant. At the date of bankruptcy, RBC was owed $498,799. RBC took an action that originally was an action that could be taken by the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee). It did so under section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). The Trustee was either unwilling or unable to launch the action. The action RBC launched was for the repayment of the amount realized by the landlord as a preferential payment under section 95 of the BIA.

The Court ruled partly in favour of RBC. It ordered that the landlord could retain the amount of $79,586. The balance of $144,404 could not be kept by the landlord and had to be paid over to RBC.

Ontario commercial lease agreement: The same decision would be reached in Ontario

I am satisfied that the same decision would be reached in Ontario. As I mentioned above, distraint is not a termination of the lease. Although the practical effect would be to end the tenant’s business, the lease continues and so does the tenant’s obligations to the landlord. The commercial tenant’s rights under its Ontario commercial lease agreement also remain. Distraint is a mutually exclusive remedy from termination of the lease.

The Court determined that Section 95 of the BIA does not apply to set aside distraint proceedings by a landlord under a commercial tenancy agreement in arrears. That section just included payments made by an insolvent party. The Court also stated that Section 70 of the BIA protects the landlord’s distraint because the distraint was fully completed by payment to the landlord.

However, the Court did find that the payment to the landlord was extreme. As you will recall, the distraint is based on the arrears at the time of effecting the distraint. In this case, the amount outstanding at that time was $79,586. However, the amount paid to the landlord, after the costs of distraint, was $223,990. Commercial lease landlord responsibilities include providing proper accounting. Therefore, the Court ordered that the excess over what the landlord was owed, $144,404, had to be paid to the plaintiff, RBC.

If there were no secured creditors and the Trustee launched the application, the result would have been the same. The only difference would be that the excess funds would have to be paid over to the Trustee. The result in Ontario would be the same as in this Alberta case.

Is your company insolvent?

Is your company behind in its rent payments under its Ontario commercial lease agreement? Does it not have enough cash to continue its operations?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people and companies trying to find financial restructuring or a financial debt negotiation strategy. As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals licensed, recognized and supervised by the federal government to supply bankruptcy and insolvency advice and carry out strategies to aid you to stay clear of bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can cut the stress, anxiousness and pain from your life that your financial issues have caused. With the special roadmap, we establish just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and hassle-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your company’s debt troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.ontario commercial lease agreement

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY CANADA NEW EVENTS (2019)

Introduction

There has been two recent bankruptcy Canada new events that I believe are important to discuss. I believe you will hear more about it over the next few months. The two are unrelated.

One deals with the insolvency of oil and gas companies. The other with the rights of retired people and their company pensions and health benefits when their former employer goes into insolvency proceedings.

Bankruptcy Canada – The Redwater decision fallout

I have previously written about the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Redwater Energy Corporation matter. On January 31, 2019, the top Federal Court released its decision in the case of Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd. The Supreme Court reversed 2 Alberta lower Court decisions. It is now the law of the land that, prior to lenders or creditors getting any type of repayment, the receiver or trustee will need to invest the funds from the sale of assets on the environmental remediation costs on all orphaned wells, that provincial legislation may need.

The decision made it clear that the receiver or trustee does not need to spend cash it does not have from the sale of assets or other recoveries. However, whatever amount it recoups from the sale of assets, on a net basis, will initially need to go to provincially mandated clean-up costs of the financially troubled company’s wells. This is before secured or unsecured creditors see a penny.

Trident Exploration Corp.

Now for the fallout. Natural gas producer Trident Exploration Corp. (Trident) ceased operations on April 30, 2019. On May 3 on application to the Court by the Alberta Energy Regulator’s Orphan Well Association, Trident was placed in receivership.

Its staff and contractors have been terminated and its 3,600+ wells are being transitioned to the Alberta regulator.

The company claimed it had functioned openly and collaboratively with its lenders and the regulator since February. It further reported that it was unable to see that a successful restructuring could be accomplished in a timely fashion. Therefore, Trident’s lender stopped supporting the business. Due to this, Trident does not have the funds to run its infrastructure or enter into insolvency proceedings. Consequently, they have determined to walk away, leaving greater than 3,600 sites, a number of them active, without an operator.

The regulator then issued its order for the sites to be properly decommissioned and capped off. On April 30, Trident, without replying to the regulator’s order or addressing their environmental obligations, the Directors ceased operations, terminated its staff and contractors. The Board then resigned. Trident’s wells will soon be transferred to the Orphan Well Association.

The Redwater effect

Trident blamed the recent Redwater Supreme Court decision which ruled that capping of orphan oil and gas wells and environmental remediation should take priority over lenders when a business goes bankrupt and leaves behind orphan wells.

Trident also said that the Redwater decision, regulatory uncertainty and current low pricing has developed a treacherous setting for energy companies that dare to risk their capital in Canada.

Trident estimates that its total abandonment and improvement obligations are about $329 million. They estimate that with those costs, any recovery by secured lenders is unsure and there would be no funds for either unsecured creditors or shareholders.

The Redwater effect is that the Court’s decision has had the unintended result of increasing Trident’s financial distress and accelerating the abandonment of its wells, has it had no funds to live up to its obligations.

Only time will tell if other insolvent energy producers take the route of Trident by just shutting down and abandoning its business and leaving its wells for the regulator to deal with.

Bankruptcy Canada – Retiree pension and health benefit rights protection in insolvency proceedings

Another topic I have previously written about is the lack of protection for retirees for pension and health benefit payments when the former employer enters insolvency proceedings. Rank-and-file members of the United Steelworkers (USW) from across Canada were on Parliament Hill to consult with MPs and requesting a commitment to legislate protection for retired workers. The USW very much want to make this a 2019 federal election issue.

The 2019 federal budget plan was very quiet on any type of commitment to shield workers and retirees by treating them as protected or priority creditors in our insolvency laws.

As a result of high-profile cases such as Nortel in Ottawa, Stelco in Hamilton and Sears, the USW is committed to campaigning for retirees to have a safe future.

Retirees understand just how unsecure their pension plans and benefits might be if a firm gets into restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or any proceeding under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

Pensions are delayed earnings and, by the time financial institutions as well as various other creditors are paid, there is nothing left for workers for any shortfall or benefit payments. The USW feels that all Canadians ought to be outraged by the treatment of retired Canadians in corporate insolvency matters.

This is why they met with MPs Senators. They want to focus on a collection of recent Bills presently before the House of Commons and the Senate. Two are before the House of Commons but they have not progressed. One is sponsored by the New Democratic Party, and the other by the Bloc Québecois. They are focused on reforming the CCAA and the BIA to offer top priority to claims by workers arising out of an underfunded pension plan and the removal of benefits.

An additional Bill, presented in the Senate late last year by now-retired Senator Art Eggleton, likewise aims to grant secured standing for pension claims.

It will be interesting to see if the Conservative Party picks up on this important debate and turns it into an election issue. The Liberal Party had promised to deal with this issue in the last four years, but alas, they have not delivered.

Bankruptcy Canada – Summary

Corporations that cannot afford to properly shut down their business and retirees losing out on benefits they worked their whole life for are important issues in insolvency. Does your company not have enough cash to continue its operations? Did you not receive all amounts you are entitled to and now are facing personal financial problems?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people and companies trying to find financial restructuring or a financial debt negotiation strategy. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals licensed, recognized and supervised by the federal government to supply insolvency advice and carry out strategies to aid you to stay clear of personal bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can cut the stress, anxiousness and pain from your life that your financial issues have caused. With the special roadmap, we establish just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and hassle-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your debt troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will most certainly allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

 

bankruptcy canada

 

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

FINANCIAL SECURITY REPORT: HALF OF CANADIANS CAN’T MAKE ENDS MEET

Financial security Introduction

Brand-New Ipsos study findings were released on April 22, 2019, simply 2 days prior to the next Bank of Canada interest rate announcement. This brand-new survey shows exactly how Canadians really feel about their financial security or its absence. Ipsos claims almost fifty percent of Canadians cannot make ends meet on a monthly basis.

Fifty percent of Canada is worried about the effect of increasing rates of interest on their financial resources. They feel even worse about their debt load from just a couple of months back.

Canadians maxed out on debt

Canadians are maxed out on debt with 48% of Canadians on the edge of bankruptcy. They claim that they go by the end of every month to within $200 or less far from financial insolvency.

In regards to Canadians and their beliefs, people are worried about their debt levels and financial security. Forty-eight percent of those questioned claim they cannot make ends meet. They understand that they are most likely to take on even more debt at the end of each month to pay all of their expenditures. So practically fifty percent of all Canadians need to handle even more debt to satisfy their current expenses, which in part includes existing debt repayments!

It’s no longer about purchases – that ship has already sailed!

It ends up from the survey that this isn’t about the fact that we’re in a low-interest-rate atmosphere any longer. It also isn’t about people making high-end or lifestyle new purchases that are considered unnecessary.

They have actually already done all that. Especially people in Toronto and Vancouver that have stretched to buy costly houses, home furnishings and appliances. They used the low-interest rate mortgages and home equity credit lines to do it.

New debt on top of old debt

So now they understand that they better not take on even more debt. However, guess what? It is currently far too late for almost half of Canada. People are claiming they currently just cannot make ends meet. Therefore, they have no choice but to take on even more debt.

Brand-new debt to make old debt repayments! Undoubtedly, these individuals stay in a hazardous downward spiral. People are questioning whether can continue in this way and are thinking about personal bankruptcy.

It is true that the survey has a small sample size. This Ipsos survey reveals growing tension and grief. Nevertheless, personal bankruptcies remain historically low in this nation. Undoubtedly, there are local distinctions. Albertans are experiencing far more personal insolvencies as a result of the slowness in the energy market.

I think there are 2 really basic reasons for almost half of Canadians dealing with financial insolvency yet personally bankruptcy levels are down. First, financially troubled Canadians are utilizing the consumer proposal arrangements section of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). This is a good thing because they are avoiding bankruptcy.

Second, people still have adequate equity in their houses. So, they are still able to borrow for brand-new debt to satisfy old debt payments other living costs. This is not a good thing. The thing Canadians do not seem to be doing yet is tightening their belts and lowering month-to-month expenses.

Bank of Canada

The Bank of Canada (BOC) increased its overnight interest rate 5 times since mid-2017. At the end of 2018, everyone, including the BOC assumed that fad was most likely to continue. Nevertheless, in its first 2019 interest rate announcement, the Bank altered its signals and currently appears completely satisfied to hold steady on the interest rate for what might be for the rest of 2019.

On April 24, 2019, the BOC announced that it was maintaining the overnight bank rate target at 1 ¾ percent. The BOC did so based on its observations of the Canadian and global economies.

Their statement included, that in Canada:

  • economic development throughout the very first half of 2019 is anticipated to be slower than was forecast for in January 2019.
  • The oil price decrease and recurring transport restrictions have actually suppressed financial investment and exports in the oil industry.
  • Financial investment and exports outside the oil market, at the same time, have been adversely impacted by unpredictability and the global downturn.
  • Beyond the oil and gas market, the financial investment will be sustained by high prices of other commodities and exports will broaden with reinforcing international need.

As far as the global market, the BOC stated:

  • The global economy reduced by greater than the Bank projected in its January Monetary Policy Report.
  • Continuous unpredictability connected to trade disputes has weakened business views.
  • Stagnation throughout many countries has resulted.
  • In reaction, several reserve banks have reported a slower speed of monetary plan normalization.

As a result, the BOC kept its target for the overnight rate at 1 3/4 percent.

Financial questions for Canadians

Virtually fifty percent of Canadians currently are sorry for the debt they have. I believe what this does is brings recognition for you to have a serious discussion in your home. The discussion requires to be about:

  • Exactly how near the margin are you living?
  • What household costs could you drop?
  • Could you survive if one of you were to lose your job?
  • If not, what can you do now to prepare for that if it were to one day happen?
  • Have you filed all your income tax returns and paid all your tax obligations?
  • Did you get a tax refund and what are you most likely to do with that cash to help with your situation?
  • Are your Christmas gifts expenses all paid or are you still rolling those costs on your credit card bill every month?

Despite that the job market has seen wage strength, the Canadian economic situation has not produced great financial signals. There are spots that seem to be a little murkier. Our rising cost of living is nearing 2% on an annualized basis and we’re paying much more for gas at the pump. We’re paying a lot more for produce. So there are things that are costing us even more simple to manage. So if income is increasing a bit, costs are climbing much more.

So Canadians are currently really feeling a little sweaty. They aren’t certain what is most likely to take place. Currently, there appears to be a little bit of a rest on the interest rates.

Canadians need to set up a proper household budget

I would certainly suggest that not everybody has taken a hard look at their financial situation. There’s plenty of presumptions that can take place due to the fact that you just do not understand your numbers. I see that occurring all the time.

So perhaps people really feel a little even worse off than they actually are due to the fact that they do not understand their numbers. They understand they stay in difficulty, however, do not have the capability to assemble a roadmap for saving themselves.

A truth check is needed instantly. Most likely fifty percent of those that claim they cannot make ends meet can save themselves without turning to an insolvency process. If they just recognized their realities about their very own money situation. The other half of the half, or 25% of Canadians, probably do meet the financial insolvency definition and need professional help.

The trick might just be that Canadians need to promptly get a good handle on what their month-to-month income and expenses truly are. Share that info with the entire household and make and follow a household budget that has everybody’s agreement. Your financial security in retirement may depend upon it.

Readers of my Brandon’s Blog will know that I always state the advantages of correct budgeting. To check out this budgeting topic you can look as far back as my collection of blogs that began late in 2014 with A BALANCED BUDGET IS TO FINANCIAL HEALTH WHAT A BALANCED DIET IS TO PHYSICAL HEALTH. You can additionally check my more recent 2019 blogs, USEFUL TIPS FOR SAVING MONEY CANADA: THIS PRO ATHLETE TEACHES US and also MY BILLS ARE HIGH: 6 THINGS TO IMMEDIATELY DO.

What about you or your company?

Do you have way too much debt? Are you having difficulty making your month-to-month expenses? Is your company having a hard time handling its economic difficulties that you cannot figure how to get out of?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people and companies looking for financial restructuring or a debt settlement plan. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only experts recognized, accredited and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and carry out alternatives to aid you to stay clear of bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can end your tension, stress and anxiety that your financial problems have triggered. With the special roadmap, we develop unique for you, we will right away return you right into a healthy and well-balanced hassle-free life.

You can have a no-cost evaluation so we can help you repair your debt difficulties. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will most certainly permit you to return to a brand new healthy life, Starting Over Starting Now.financial security

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

THE HONEST TO GOODNESS TRUTH ON BANKRUPTING A CORPORATION

bankrupting a corporation

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast

Bankrupting a corporation: Introduction

I have blogged on personal and corporate insolvency matters for just over 6 years now. I have covered many topics. During a recent corporate bankruptcy consultation, I realized that I have never written about what the steps are for bankrupting a corporation. An important issue arising from this topic would be what the Directors of a corporation going into bankruptcy should know.

There are 3 ways for a company to be bankrupt

Like in all bankruptcy matters, there are three methods that result in bankrupting a corporation in Canada. The first way is being pushed, and the second way is jumping in with both feet voluntarily (I know, corporations don’t have feet!). The third way is to have the company’s creditors vote down a corporation’s attempt to restructure under a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). In this Brandon’s Blog, I will focus on describing the first two methods.

Bankruptcy application – an involuntary bankruptcy

Being pushed means that one or more unsecured creditors, owed in total at least $1,000, has made a motion before the Court asking that a Bankruptcy Order be made against the company. The motion is called a Bankruptcy Application.

In order to do so, the unsecured creditor(s) have to:

  • retain a bankruptcy lawyer.
  • gotten the consent of a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee) to administer the corporate bankruptcy.
  • In addition to proving the debt owing, the applicant(s) also have to prove that at least one act of bankruptcy was committed by the company within the 6 months before the filing of the bankruptcy application.

There are various acts of bankruptcy listed in Section 42(1) of the BIA. Commonly seen acts of bankruptcy are fraudulent transfers of property, allowing a lawful seizure of some or all of their property by a creditor under a lawful process, and the catch-all ceasing to meet many liabilities as they come due.

Jumping in with both feet – a voluntary bankruptcy

By this term, I mean filing an Assignment in Bankruptcy. In this case, rather than someone going to Court, the Directors call a Directors’ meeting. At the meeting, the Directors resolve that the company is experiencing financial difficulty and cannot continue to run. The Directors also reserve that the company should file an assignment in bankruptcy and it gives authority to one Director to sign all the necessary documents.

The Director who has the authority to sign the bankruptcy documents is called the Designated Officer. Before the documents are ready for signing, the Trustee who is selected must get enough information to prepare the documentation.

Whether bankrupting a corporation in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada and regardless if it is a result of a Bankruptcy Order or an Assignment in Bankruptcy, the information the Trustee requires is the same.

Information and documents a Trustee needs

The Trustee requires a great deal of information before being able to properly administer a voluntary or involuntary corporate bankruptcy. Sometimes company officials can provide it and in other cases, the Trustee has to dig through the books and records of the company.

Here is the lengthy list of what is needed:

  • Exact corporate name and address of head office, details of any other locations, copy of any premises leases.
  • Minute book and corporate seal.
  • Bankruptcy Order or the resolution of the Directors.
  • Full description of the nature of the business.
  • Names of Officers and Directors and their addresses.
  • Date of incorporation of the company.
  • The date the company ceased operations, if prior to the date of bankruptcy.
  • The greatest number of employees employed in the last 12 months.
  • All employees – listing of names, addresses, social insurance number, amounts owing for each of severance, termination, wages, vacation pay, commissions and expenses.
  • Employee T4’s & ROE’s for current year employees (employer should issue to all employees for the year of bankruptcy and earlier if unissued).
  • Creditors’ listing (accounts payable) – details consisting of name, address, account number(s), and respective amounts owing classified as follows:
    • Secured – banks, leasing company, source deductions, etc.
    • Preferred – wages owing, rent to landlords, government remittances outstanding:
    • Workers Compensation Board, if applicable.
    • Municipal authorities: e.g. business taxes and realty taxes.
    • Employer’s health tax.
    • Unsecured – trade suppliers; Hydro; Bell Canada (quote telephone number(s); gas, etc.
    • Details of any unsecured private party loans, shareholder loans or advances due to the company.
  • Details of any unions, if applicable, including name, address, account number.
  • Details of contingent liabilities and pending legal action, if any.
  • Accounts receivable – aged trial balance and detailed backup documentation (invoices, delivery slips, purchase orders, etc.) to support collection efforts. From the aged trial balance, classify the accounts as good, doubtful, bad to equal the total balance.
  • Inventory – detailed information on inventory cost and the company’s assessment of estimated realizable values.
  • Machinery, equipment and plant – detailed listing providing original cost, if possible and estimated realizable value.
  • Office furniture & fixtures – detailed listing providing original cost, if possible and estimated realizable value.
  • Real estate – all details of real estate owned, including deeds, legal descriptions, original costs, appraisals (if any), an estimated fair market value.
  • Vehicles – provide descriptions including year, model, VIN, kilometres, original costs and estimated realizable value. Note if any vehicles are leased/financed and provide copies of the lease/finance documentation.
  • Other assets – details of other assets such as prepaid expenses, deposits, goodwill, intangibles, shares or any investments, patents, trademarks.
  • Bank accounts – details of all bank accounts, including name, address, account number and approximate balance in the accounts.
  • Last 12 months of accounting records, bank statements and cancelled cheques (for all accounts maintained).
  • Financial statements – most recent.
  • Corporate solicitor – name and address.
  • Listing of leased equipment (copy of leases) – vehicles, office and any other equipment.
  • Insurance policy(ies).
  • A brief narrative of management’s opinion as to cause(s) of insolvency.
  • Disclosure of any sale or disposition of assets, outside of the ordinary course of business, in the last year.

The Trustee’s job

In a corporate bankruptcy, the Trustee, with certain exceptions, takes possession of the assets of the company. If the Trustee is aware that there are deemed trust claims against the assets, or there is a secured creditor, like a Chartered Bank, the Trustee must be careful. If there are, the Trustee should have already had a conversation with those parties prior to the bankruptcy, to decide what rights, if any, the Trustee may have against such property.

Assuming there are assets not subject to the valid claim of third parties, the Trustee must at least:

  1. Establish whether the value of the assets will be enhanced if the Trustee operates the company’s business.
  2. Take into account what obstacles exist in running the business and how to reduce risk if it is beneficial or necessary to run the business.
  3. Decide what are the very best means to sell the properties? En bloc as one parcel or individually or at least several parcels?
  4. Determine if there are any 3rd party owned assets on the company’s premises?
  5. Identify if there are any company assets on the property of 3rd parties?
  6. Prepare the required reporting to Service Canada so that the former employees will be able to make their Wage Earner Protection Plan Act claims.
  7. See if there are proper insurance coverage and proper physical security over the assets?
  8. Identify any inventory been delivered in the 30 days prior to the date of bankruptcy? What rights of revindication might exist?
  9. Circularize the creditors requesting claims to be filed to understand what the depth and breadth of claims against the company are. This way, the Trustee can formulate a distribution to creditors, in priority, with the net funds available from the sale of assets.

What the Directors should be concerned about

Directors should have two concerns when contemplating bankrupting a corporation. First, they should be concerned about any decisions they have made or senior management actions they have ratified.

For example, Sears in the United States recently lodged a claim versus its previous CEO Eddie Lampert and a string of its top-level previous Directors. This includes Eddie Lampert’s previous Yale roomie Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The allegation is that the Directors condoned and approved Eddie Lampert’s actions for presumably swiping billions of dollars from the once-storied merchant.

Second, there are various types of claims against the corporation that are also personal claims against Directors. The list includes Director liability for unpaid:

  • Wages
  • HST
  • Source deductions
  • Certain environmental offences
  • Cybersecurity risks

In general, there is a relatively short list of things Directors can be personally liable for. In many cases, there will be Director and Officer Insurance to be relied upon. Directors may also have a due diligence defence.

A Director resigning their position will not protect them against any liability that would be a personal Director liability prior to their resignation.

Are you a Corporate Director?

Are you a Director of a corporation that has too much debt? Is your company’s capital insufficient to fulfill every one of its economic responsibilities and may be insolvent? Are you worried that your firm’s major secured lender will soon pull its financing completely and demand repayment in full which the company will not be able to do?

If you responded yes to any of these questions, call the Ira Smith Team today so we can kill off the stress and anxiety that these financial troubles have activated. We will create a strategy for the Directors unique for your company’s problems so that it can avoid bankruptcy and become profitable and continue to employ many people.

Call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience restructuring and turning around companies seeking financial restructuring or a debt negotiation strategy. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only specialists recognized, certified and monitored by the federal government to offer insolvency guidance to save businesses.

You can have a no-cost assessment so we can fix your company’s debt problems. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will absolutely allow you to return to being efficient, healthy and balanced, Starting Over Starting Now.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

MOVE FAST TO OBJECT TO AN ONTARIO RECEIVERSHIP COURT ORDER

What is a receiver in insolvency?

A recent case heard in the Court of Appeal for Ontario clarifies what the time limit is to object to an order made in a Court-appointed receivership of a company in Ontario. The bottom line is you better move fast. Before I describe this very interesting decision, I should first remind newer readers on some receiver 101 basics.

What is it?

A receivership is a remedy for secured creditors to enforce their security. In the event, the company defaults on its loan agreement, normally by non-payment, the secured creditor. There are two types of these proceedings in Canada; 1) privately appointed or; 2) court appointed. A receiver might additionally be selected in an investor dispute to complete a task, liquidate assets or market a business.

Typically, the process begins with the secured creditor consulting with a Receiver. If it is decided that there should be a receiver appointed, the secured creditor then makes a choice. They can either appoint the receiver by written appointment letter (privately appointed) or make a motion to the Court for an Order appointing the receiver (court-appointed).

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) states that only a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) can act as a receiver. A privately appointed receiver acts on behalf of the appointing secured creditor. A court-appointed receiver has a duty of care to all creditors.

What are the duties of a receiver?

The receiver’s first duty is to take possession and control of the assets covered by the secured creditor’s security in a private appointment, or all the assets indicated in the court order in a court appointment. The receiver must decide whether it can get a higher value for the assets if it operates the business. Alternatively, the receiver may decide that the risk of operating the business is not worth it in terms of any meaningful increase in the value of the assets.

The receiver then develops a plan to on the running of the business and for the eventual sale of the assets. The type of business and the nature of the assets will dictate what approach the receiver will take. In the meantime, the receiver must inventory all the assets, protect them and make sure there is adequate insurance in place for what the receiver wishes to do in terms of running the business and selling the assets.

In a private appointment, the receiver needs to get the approval of the secured creditor before embarking on the business and asset plan. In a court appointment, the receiver requires the approval of the court.

What happens when a company goes into receivership?

When the company goes into receivership, senior management and the Directors lose most of their authority for decision making. The Directors’ general corporate duty of maintaining corporate records continues, but any decision-making about the running of the business or its assets will not be effective. This is especially true in a court appointment. The subject of Director liability is too broad to start mentioning in this Brandon’s Blog. i am planning to soon write a blog on that topic.

Management’s and employees’ responsibilities about the business in a practical sense will stop upon the appointment of the receiver. Their advice and help are only required if requested by the receiver. They certainly will not be paid for any efforts unless the receiver agrees in writing to make money available for their pay.

Court of Appeal for Ontario says you better move fast

Why the confusion? Isn’t the process for an appeal of a court order straightforward? The confusion comes about because, in the standard model Appointment Order of the Commercial List of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the court-appointed receiver is appointed under two statutes:

  1. Section 101 of the provincial Ontario Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43 (CJA).
  2. The federal BIA, section 243(1).

The applicant, in this case, was the purchaser of assets from a court-appointed receiver of a company. One of the standard provisions in the Appointment Order is that anyone wishing to take legal action against the receiver must first get the approval of the court to do so.

They brought an application for authorization to sue the receiver over a disagreement arising from the purchase of the assets from the receiver under the asset purchase agreement. On May 17, 2018, the lower court judge dismissed the application, finding that their allegations were not supported by the evidence. On November 8, 2018, the same judge refused their demand to resume the application based on new evidence.

The applicant filed appeals from both decisions. Its notices of appeal were on time under the provincial CJA, under which there is a 30-day time limit for commencing an appeal. They were late under the federal BIA, which imposes a 10-day time limit.

The lower court judge dismissed the appeals. He held that the BIA was the governing authority for the appeal, not the CJA. He stated that the origin of authority under which the receiver was appointed was section 243( 1) of the BIA and therefore appeals are governed by the BIA, not the CJA. He further went on to say that the appointment also under the CJA did not have the result of ousting the BIA as the source of authority. He further held that it also cannot supersede the federal BIA holds paramountcy over the provincial CJA.

receivership

Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd., 2019 ONCA 269

The Court of Appeal for Ontario decision was released on April 8, 2019. The appeal court found that this was a very narrow issue to decide so that it did not have to get into the merits of the case of the purchaser wanting to sue the receiver over a disagreement arising from the purchase of the assets from the receiver under the asset purchase agreement.

The Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and did not find that the chambers judge made any errors. They said that when the order sought to be appealed was made in reliance on jurisdiction under the BIA, the proper appeal path is the BIA.

The lower court, the Ontario Superior Court Justice Commercial List, rejected the purchaser’s demand to sue the receiver, which is the decision the applicant wishes to appeal. The requirement to get leave of the court to sue the receiver comes from the Appointment Order. The court’s authority to include that arrangement order comes from the statutory power to appoint a receiver under s. 243( 1) of the BIA.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the legal power to appoint a receiver is also found in s. 101 of the CJA. But considering that authority for the leave to take legal action against the receiver comes from the BIA in spite of that the receiver was appointed under both laws, the appeal is governed by the BIA as a matter of paramountcy.

Therefore the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the applicant’s appeal and awarded costs against them.

Does your company need to move fast?

Does your company have way too much debt? Is your company’s cash flow not enough to meet all of its financial obligations? Are you afraid that your company’s main secured creditor is about to demand repayment of its loan in full and you just can’t move fast enough to save your company?

If you answered yes, call the Ira Smith Team today so we can end the tension and anxiousness that these financial problems have triggered. We will develop a plan special for your company, to save it from extinction.

Call the Ira Smith Team today. We have years and generations of experience restructuring and saving companies looking for financial restructuring or a debt settlement approach. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals acknowledged, accredited and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice to save companies.

You can have a no-cost analysis to aid you so we can repair your company’s debt problems. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will certainly allow you to get back to Starting Over Starting Now.

receivership

Call a Trustee Now!