Tag: Court of Appeal for Ontario

INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE COURT ORDER: THE FULL POWER OF THE COURT IN ONTARIO REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date October 6, 2025

Insolvency Trustee Court Order: Introduction

As a Licensed Insolvency Trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) at Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. in the Greater Toronto Area, I meet with people and business owners every day who feel overwhelmed by debt. Many believe we only handle bankruptcies. The truth is, our role goes much deeper. We act as a bridge between financial trouble and the Canadian legal system.

From our Vaughan office at 167 Applewood Crescent, Suite 6, we help clients find a secure path through their financial challenges. One of the most powerful tools in this process is the insolvency trustee court order.

These court orders form the backbone of fairness and legality in Canadian insolvency cases. Whether you’re a small business owner looking for a way to save or safely close your business, or dealing with a multi-million-dollar corporate restructuring, court orders protect everyone involved.

Let me share a very recent Ontario court decision. In 2025, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) took action against Cacoeli Asset Management and related entities (Cacoeli). This case shows exactly how an insolvency trustee court order can stop improper conduct and protect investors.

In this post, I’ll explain:

What happened in the Cacoeli case and why it matters
How the court decided to appoint a receiver
What a Licensed Insolvency Trustee does under a court order
When you need a court order in insolvency proceedings

Let’s start with the case that brought these issues to light.

The Superior Court’s Insolvency Trustee Court Order Appointing the Receiver

In the recent Ontario court case of, Ontario Securities Commission v. Cacoeli Asset Management, 2025 ONSC 3012, the OSC asked the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for urgent help. They wanted an insolvency trustee court order to take control of the Cacoeli assets before their investigation was even finished. This is a serious step that requires strong reasons.

The Problem: Misused Investor Money

The OSC found that Cacoeli had raised at least $13 million from about 53 investors. Each investor thought their money was going to buy and manage a specific property. Different limited partnerships were created for each unique property.

However, the investigation revealed something troubling. Money meant for one property was allegedly being moved to support completely different properties. This is called “fund diversion.”

Investors who thought their money was buying Property A discovered it might have been used for Properties B, C, or D instead.

What Standard of Proof Was Needed?

Cacoeli’s lawyers argued that appointing a receiver is extremely serious. It takes away the company’s control over its own business. They said the OSC needed to prove a “strong prima facie case” – meaning very strong evidence that laws were broken.

Justice Steele disagreed. She confirmed that for protective orders under Ontario’s Securities Act, the OSC only needs to show “serious concern that there have been possible breaches.”

Why does this matter? It means courts can act quickly to protect investors. They don’t have to wait months or years for a full trial when people’s money is at risk.

Reading the Partnership Agreements

Cacoeli argued that their partnership agreements allowed them to move money around. They pointed to clauses that gave the General Partner power to “invest funds” and “engage in any transaction with affiliates.”

Justice Steele carefully read the agreements. She found that the “Purpose” section was crystal clear. Each partnership existed for one specific reason: to acquire and manage that particular property only.

The broad powers mentioned elsewhere in the agreement could only be used to support that specific purpose. They couldn’t be used to break the fundamental promise made to investors.

This finding confirmed that the fund diversion was serious and possibly illegal.

Why Include All Properties Under One Receiver?

Certain secured creditors held mortgages on specific Cacoeli properties. Some of them asked the court to exclude their properties from the receivership. They wanted to seize and sell those properties themselves.

Justice Steele said no. She ordered the insolvency trustee court order to cover all Cacoeli properties and companies.

Why? Excluding properties would create chaos:

Different creditors would fight over different assets
Multiple court cases would overlap and contradict each other
Costs would skyrocket
Small creditors would get nothing

Appointing one Licensed Insolvency Trustee as the court-appointed receiver guaranteed central oversight, coordination, and fairness for everyone.

Insolvency Trustee Court Order: The Court of Appeal Upholds Investor Protection

Cacoeli appealed Justice Steele’s decision. The case went to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. A panel of three justices – Hourigan, Zarnett, and Pomerance – reviewed the lower court decision in Ontario Securities Commission v. Cacoeli Asset Management Inc., 2025 ONCA 654 (CanLII).

The Main Argument on Appeal

Cacoeli made the same argument again. They insisted that appointing a receiver was so powerful that courts should require the higher “strong prima facie case” standard of proof.

The Court of Appeal’s Strong Response

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument completely. Their reasoning matters for anyone dealing with financial regulation:

Public protection comes first: Requiring a high standard of proof would “impede the public protection mandate of the OSC”
Early action is essential: A high standard would make it “impossible for the OSC to obtain receivership at the early stages of an investigation when the facts are not fully known.”

This is a clear message from Ontario’s highest court: when protecting the public is the priority, courts will allow regulators to act fast using an insolvency trustee court order – even before every detail is fully investigated.

The receivership order acts as a protective shield, not a final punishment.

The Final Decision

The Court of Appeal found “no question that the OSC has established a serious concern” about possible legal breaches.

The appeal was dismissed. The original insolvency trustee court order appointing the receiver remained in force.

Cacoeli was ordered to pay the OSC $15,000 for the costs of the appeal.

The Foundational Role of a Licensed Insolvency Trustee in Canada

Who Is a Licensed Insolvency Trustee?

A Licensed Insolvency Trustee (LIT) is the only professional in Canada authorized to administer bankruptcies and consumer proposals. In addition, only LITs can act as a receiver, be it private or court-appointed under an insolvency trustee court order.

We are not lawyers. We are officers of the court.

To become an LIT, you must:

Complete rigorous education requirements
Gain practical experience in the field
Pass demanding written and oral examinations
Demonstrate expertise in financial assessment, accounting, and insolvency law

This high standard allows us to act as impartial administrators of insolvency estates. Think of us as neutral referees. Our job is to balance the rights of:

The debtor (the person or company owing money)
The creditors (the people or companies owed money)

The Law That Guides Everything We Do

The first piece of legislation that covers every action a Licensed Insolvency Trustee takes is the federal law: the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act Canada (BIA).

The BIA is the ultimate authority for virtually all consumer and corporate insolvency proceedings in Canada. It:

Lays out the rules for debt relief
Sets the framework for proposals (which help restructure debt)
Defines the powers and duties of trustees

Very large corporate restructurings are usually done under a different federal law, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The BIA and CCAA are our playbooks. The courts are the referees who make the final calls. Provincial laws also apply, but the federal BIA governs all Licensed Insolvency Trustees.

Federal Oversight: The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy

Unlike most private professionals, Licensed Insolvency Trustees are constantly supervised by a federal regulator: the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada (OSB).

The OSB’s job is to ensure that Canada’s insolvency system is fair, efficient, and that trustees perform their duties with integrity.

This creates two layers of oversight:

The OSB (administrative supervision)
The Courts (judicial supervision)

This dual oversight gives the public and creditors confidence in the system. We must report all significant actions to the OSB. For many major decisions, we seek court approval through an insolvency trustee court order.

Our Core Responsibilities

Whether helping an individual consumer get a financial fresh start through a personal insolvency process or managing a complex corporate wind-down, our core responsibilities stay the same:

Secure Assets: Take possession and control of all assets belonging to the debtor (subject to provincial exemptions for individuals and the rights of trust claimants and secured creditors)

Investigate Financial Affairs: Examine the debtor’s finances, including transactions before the insolvency filing, to ensure fairness

Realize Value: Sell assets in a way that maximizes returns for creditors

Distribute Funds: Distribute money collected to creditors according to the priority rules in the BIA and/or as approved by the court through an insolvency trustee court order

Report: Provide detailed financial reports to creditors, the OSB, and the court

Understanding the Necessity of an Insolvency Trustee Court Order in Insolvency Proceedings

What Is an Insolvency Trustee Court Order?

A court order is a written ruling by a judge that must be followed. In insolvency, an insolvency trustee court order is an official directive that either:

Grants the Licensed Insolvency Trustee specific powers, or
Approves a significant decision or action

In the Cacoeli case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an insolvency trustee court order appointing a receiver. This order gave the receiver legal authority to seize control over all assets and properties of the Cacoeli companies.

Why Court Involvement Is Essential

Courts aren’t involved just to follow bureaucratic procedure. They serve two critical purposes:

Neutrality and Impartiality: Insolvency creates conflict. A judge provides a neutral, binding decision that everyone must respect. This ensures no single party unfairly benefits.

Legal Compliance: By reviewing the Trustee’s requests and issuing an order, the court confirms that proposed actions follow the BIA and other relevant laws strictly.

What Requires Court Approval?

Not every action a Licensed Insolvency Trustee takes requires a judge’s approval. The insolvency trustee court order appointing the receiver gives certain discretionary powers, such as handling routine matters, including administrative disbursements.

However, any major decision that impacts the fundamental rights of debtors or creditors must be sanctioned by an insolvency trustee court order. This creates a clear line between day-to-day administration and actions requiring judicial authority.

Key Scenarios Requiring a Licensed Insolvency Trustee to Obtain an Insolvency Trustee Court Order

Many actions taken by a Licensed Insolvency Trustee in a court-supervised receivership require court permission through an insolvency trustee court order. Here are the most common situations:

Approval of Trustee Fees and Administrative Costs

Our fees are strictly regulated through a process called “taxation.” The ultimate fees and costs must be approved by the court through an insolvency trustee court order.

This is a critical check to ensure the estate isn’t being overcharged. It protects creditors from excessive fees eating into their recovery.

Authorizing Unusual or Complex Transactions and Asset Sales

A key duty of a Licensed Insolvency Trustee is to liquidate (sell) assets. However, court approval is required when the transaction is:

Unusual: Selling a non-standard asset or unique piece of real estate

Complex: Selling an entire business as a “going concern” (a live business that continues operating)

Controversial: When one or more stakeholders object to the sale price or terms

In these cases, the Trustee must provide sufficient evidence to a judge for an insolvency trustee court order to approve the transaction.

Resolving Disputes Among Stakeholders

The Trustee may face disputes such as:

A party claiming ownership of an asset under the receiver’s control
A dispute over the validity or priority of different security interests
Creditors disagreeing about distribution

When these disputes can’t be settled through negotiation, the Trustee brings a motion to court. A judge issues an insolvency trustee court order that settles the matter legally and definitively.

In the Cacoeli case, secured creditors wanted their properties excluded from the receivership. Justice Steele rejected this request. She stated the receivership must cover all properties to prevent chaos among creditors. This is a prime example of the court resolving a major stakeholder dispute.

Approving Debtor Proposals and Restructuring Plans

The goal of a business proposal under a BIA Division I Proposal or major corporate restructuring under the CCAA is to financially restructure the company to save it and as many jobs as possible.

A significant insolvency trustee court order is always required for final approval of a Division I restructuring proposal or restructuring plan. The court confirms that the plan is fair, reasonable, viable and calculated for the general benefit of all creditors.

Modifying, Annulling, or Terminating Insolvency Proceedings

Sometimes a debtor’s situation changes. They may need to alter their original plan based on changed circumstances. Or the Trustee may discover an issue that warrants ending the insolvency proceeding entirely, as the original plan is no longer viable.

A judge must review the facts and issue an insolvency trustee court order to modify, annul, or terminate the proceeding.

Addressing Trustee Liability or Allegations of Misconduct

If any stakeholder alleges that a LIT has breached their duties or acted improperly, the matter goes before a judge.

The court must issue an order to investigate the claim. If necessary, the court can order compensation or disciplinary action against the Trustee. This ensures absolute accountability.

The Far-Reaching Significance of Judicial Oversight in Insolvency

Protecting the Interests of All Parties

Judicial oversight is about trust. By demanding an insolvency trustee court order for critical actions, the system provides comfort to all parties:

Debtors know the process is being handled legally

Creditors know assets can’t be sold cheaply or favour one creditor over another

The Public knows the integrity of capital markets is being enforced, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in the Cacoeli case

Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, and Due Process

Every court motion becomes part of a public record. This transparency ensures every stakeholder can review the trustee’s actions.

The process also provides due process – the right to be heard. Any party can attend a hearing and object to a proposed action.

Upholding Public Confidence in the Canadian Insolvency System

Canada’s entire economy relies on:

The ability of businesses to take risks
The ability of creditors to enforce their rights

According to Industry Canada’s publication “Fresh Start: A Review of Canada’s Insolvency Laws“:

Insolvency legislation is a key component of Canada’s marketplace framework legislation that governs commercial relationships for both consumers and businesses. Certain and reliable rules provide security for investors and lenders that, in turn, influences the cost and availability of credit in the Canadian marketplace.

When the system fails, the court restores order. They are the clear, final legal instrument that upholds the integrity of the process and ensures public faith in financial markets and debt restructuring.

The Ultimate Framework for All Decisions

Regardless of the unique facts of any case, every judicial decision is rooted in federal and provincial law. Judges interpret the law to deliver their orders, making it the ultimate framework for every action taken by a Licensed Insolvency Trustee.

Consequences of Acting Without a Necessary Insolvency Trustee Court Order

Potential Ramifications for the Licensed Insolvency Trustee

A trustee who ignores the need for an insolvency trustee court order faces serious consequences:

Personal Liability: The trustee could be held personally responsible for any financial loss to the estate caused by unauthorized action

Disciplinary Action: The court and the OSB could impose sanctions, fines, or, in severe cases, the OSB could revoke the LIT’s license

Voided Actions: The action itself (such as an asset sale) could be reversed or voided by a subsequent court decision, creating chaos and cost

Adverse Impacts on the Insolvency Estate and Stakeholders

When a Licensed Insolvency Trustee acts outside the BIA or without proper authorization, the entire estate suffers:

Increased Costs: The estate incurs significant costs fighting legal challenges and correcting unauthorized actions

Delayed Proceedings: Disputes and legal challenges drag out the process, delaying final distribution of funds to creditors

Loss of Confidence: Creditors and debtors lose faith in the insolvency administration, leading to an unnecessarily hostile environment

Section 37 of the BIA provides that any person aggrieved by any act or decision of a Licensed Insolvency Trustee can apply to court to reverse or alter that act or decision. The court also has the authority to sanction the trustee.

Frequently Asked Questions: Insolvency Trustee Court Order

What is a Licensed Insolvency Trustee?

A Licensed Insolvency Trustee is the only professional in Canada who can legally administer receiverships, bankruptcies and consumer proposals. We used to be called trustee in bankruptcy, but the name changed to better reflect our broader role.

Think of us as a bridge between your financial troubles and the Canadian legal system. We’re officers of the court, which means we have a legal duty to be fair and impartial.

Only Licensed Insolvency Trustees can act as receivers, whether privately appointed or through an insolvency trustee court order.

To become an LIT, you must:

Complete rigorous education requirements
Gain practical experience in insolvency work
Pass demanding national examinations
Demonstrate expertise in insolvency law, accounting, and financial assessment

This ensures that every LIT has the knowledge and skills to handle complex financial situations fairly.

What does a Licensed Insolvency Trustee actually do?

Whether we’re helping someone with personal debt or managing a complex corporate restructuring or bankruptcy, our core responsibilities stay the same:

Secure Assets: We take control of all assets belonging to the debtor. This protects them from being hidden or sold improperly. (Some assets are exempt, and trust claimants and secured creditors keep their rights.)

Investigate Financial Affairs: We carefully examine the debtor’s financial transactions made before filing for insolvency.

Realize Value: We sell assets in a way that gets the best possible return for creditors. This might mean selling items individually or selling a business as a going concern.

Distribute Funds: We distribute the money we collect to creditors following the strict priority rules in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Sometimes, an insolvency trustee court order determines the distribution.

Report: We provide detailed financial reports to the court, creditors, and the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. Transparency is essential.

What law governs Licensed Insolvency Trustees in Canada?

The primary law that guides almost everything we do is the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. This is Canada’s main insolvency legislation.

The BIA covers:

Rules for debt relief and bankruptcy
The framework for consumer proposals and corporate proposals
The powers and duties of Licensed Insolvency Trustees
Priority rules for paying creditors
When court orders are required

For very large corporate restructurings (typically companies with debts over $5 million), the federal Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act often applies instead. The CCAA allows for more flexible restructuring options.

Both laws work together with provincial legislation to create Canada’s comprehensive insolvency system.

Who oversees Licensed Insolvency Trustees?

Licensed Insolvency Trustees operate under two layers of oversight. This dual supervision ensures the system works fairly:

The Courts: Provide judicial supervision and make final decisions on major actions. Courts issue insolvency trustee court orders that authorize significant steps in the process.

The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada: This federal regulator provides administrative supervision. The OSB ensures:

Canada’s insolvency system remains fair and efficient
Trustees perform their duties with integrity
Trustees follow all rules and regulations
Any complaints against trustees are investigated

This two-level oversight gives the public, debtors, and creditors confidence that the process will be handled properly.

What is an insolvency trustee court order?

An insolvency trustee court order is a written ruling issued by a judge that must be followed. It’s a legally binding document.

In insolvency cases, these court orders serve two main purposes:

Grant the Licensed Insolvency Trustee specific legal powers
Approve a significant decision or action that the LIT plans to take

These orders form the backbone of fairness and legality in Canadian insolvency cases. They ensure that major decisions have judicial approval and oversight.

For example, when a receiver is appointed (like in the Cacoeli case discussed in our blog), the insolvency trustee court order gives that receiver the legal authority to take control of assets and manage the insolvency process.

Why do courts get involved in insolvency proceedings?

Courts aren’t just following bureaucratic procedure. They serve two critical purposes in insolvency:

Ensuring Neutrality and Impartiality: Insolvency creates conflict. Creditors want their money. Debtors need protection. The judge provides a neutral, binding decision that everyone must respect. This prevents any single party from benefiting unfairly at the expense of others.

Confirming Legal Compliance: Before issuing an insolvency trustee court order, the court reviews the Applicant’s request carefully. This confirms that the proposed actions strictly follow the BIA and other relevant laws. If something doesn’t comply with the law, the judge won’t approve it.

This judicial oversight protects everyone’s rights and maintains public confidence in Canada’s insolvency system.

When does a Licensed Insolvency Trustee need a court order?

Not every action requires an insolvency trustee court order. We have discretionary powers for routine administrative matters – like paying regular administrative expenses or communicating with creditors.

However, any major decision that impacts the fundamental rights of creditors or debtors must be sanctioned by a court order. Here are the most common scenarios:

Approval of Fees and Costs: Our fees and administrative costs must be approved by the court through a process called “taxation.” This protects creditors from excessive charges eating into their recovery.

Authorizing Complex Transactions: Court approval is required for asset sales that are:

Unusual (non-standard assets or unique properties)
Complex (selling an entire business as a going concern)
Controversial (stakeholders object to the sale price or terms)

Resolving Disputes: When disputes arise – such as someone claiming ownership of an asset, or secured creditors disagreeing about distribution priorities – we bring a motion to court. The judge issues an order that settles the matter legally and definitively.

Approving Restructuring Plans: Final approval of a BIA Division I restructuring proposal or a CCAA corporate restructuring plan always requires a significant insolvency trustee court order. The court must confirm that the plan is fair, reasonable, and has a realistic chance of success.

Modifying Proceedings: If circumstances change and the insolvency proceedings need to be modified, annulled, or otherwise terminated, a court order is required.

Addressing Trustee Issues: If anyone alleges the LIT has breached their duties, the matter goes before a judge who can investigate and order appropriate remedies.

What happens if a trustee acts without getting a required court order?

Ignoring the requirement for an insolvency trustee court order leads to serious consequences for the Licensed Insolvency Trustee:

Personal Liability: The LIT may be held personally responsible for any financial loss to the estate caused by the unauthorized action. This means paying out of their own pocket.

Disciplinary Action: The court or the OSB can impose:

Sanctions
Significant fines
Suspension from practice
In severe cases, complete revocation of the LIT’s license

Voided Actions: The unauthorized action itself – such as an improper asset sale – could be reversed or voided by a subsequent court decision. This creates chaos and additional costs.

Negative Impact on Everyone: Unauthorized actions harm the entire insolvency estate:

Increased legal costs
Delayed proceedings
Loss of creditor confidence
Potential loss of asset value

Section 37 of the BIA specifically allows any person who is aggrieved by an LIT’s decision to apply to court to reverse or alter that decision. The court has full authority to sanction the trustee.

What standard of proof is needed to appoint a receiver in regulatory cases?

This is one of the most important takeaways from the Cacoeli case about insolvency trustee court orders.

When a regulator like the Ontario Securities Commission asks the court for urgent protection, they only need to show “serious concern that there have been possible breaches.”

This is a lower standard than criminal cases or even most civil cases. The court doesn’t need:

Absolute proof of fraud
Complete evidence
A finished investigation

The Court of Appeal for Ontario specifically rejected the argument that regulators must meet a higher “strong prima facie case” standard.

Why does this matter?

This lower standard allows courts and regulators to act quickly through an insolvency trustee court order to:

Protect investors from ongoing harm
Freeze assets before they disappear
Stop improper conduct immediately
Preserve evidence

The insolvency trustee court order appointing a receiver acts as a protective shield, not a final punishment. Full investigations and trials can happen later, but the immediate protection comes first.

Why did the Cacoeli court order cover all properties, even those with secured creditors?

In the Cacoeli case, some secured creditors held mortgages on specific properties. They asked the court to exclude their properties from the receivership so they could seize and sell those properties themselves.

Justice Steele refused this request. The insolvency trustee court order covered all Cacoeli assets and properties without exception.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Here’s why centralized control under one Licensed Insolvency Trustee as receiver was essential:

Prevents Creditor Chaos: If different creditors could seize different assets, they would fight over everything. The process would become a free-for-all with no coordination.

Avoids Multiple Court Cases: Excluding properties would lead to numerous separate legal proceedings, all overlapping and potentially contradicting each other.

Controls Costs: Multiple proceedings mean multiplied legal costs. A single insolvency trustee court order with one receiver keeps costs manageable.

Protects Small Creditors: When secured creditors grab assets first, unsecured creditors and small suppliers are not given a forum. Centralized control ensures everyone is treated fairly according to their legal priority.

Enables Efficient Administration: One receiver can see the whole picture, make coordinated decisions, and maximize value for all stakeholders.

This principle applies to most complex insolvency cases: centralized control through an insolvency trustee court order produces better outcomes than fragmented, competing proceedings.

Insolvency Trustee Court Order Final Thoughts: The Licensed Insolvency Trustee’s Role in a Regulatory Receivership

The insolvency trustee court order is an instrument of authority, protection, and fairness. As Licensed Insolvency Trustees, our job – whether in a standard bankruptcy, a financial restructuring or a specialized receivership like the Cacoeli case – is to impose order and protect stakeholders.

The Cacoeli decisions confirmed two critical points:

Lower Standard for Protection: Courts won’t wait for proof of fraud to a certainty. The “serious concern” standard is enough to appoint an LIT as a receiver quickly. This is essential to freeze assets and prevent further investor harm.

Centralized Control Is Key: The court agreed that the entire portfolio of assets must be placed under one receiver’s control – even properties secured by third parties. This centralized approach, ordered by the court, prevents a fragmented, costly, and unfair outcome for all stakeholders.

Need Help With Debt or Insolvency Issues?

If you’re facing financial challenges – whether personal or business-related – understanding the role of an insolvency trustee court order is just the beginning. At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we’ve helped many individuals and businesses in the Greater Toronto Area find their path to financial recovery.

From our Vaughan office, we provide:

Free, confidential consultations
Expert guidance on bankruptcy alternatives
Consumer proposals that can reduce your debt
Corporate restructuring solutions
Court-supervised receiverships

Contact us today to discuss your situation. Let us help you understand your options and find the best solution for your financial future.

Brandon Smith, Licensed Insolvency Trustee
Senior Vice-President
Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc.
167 Applewood Crescent, Suite 6
Vaughan, Ontario
Greater Toronto Area

The information provided in this blog is intended for educational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. Readers are encouraged to seek professional advice regarding their specific situations. The content should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional guidance or consultation. The author, Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., and any contributors do not assume any liability for any loss or damage.

Brandon Smith is a Licensed Insolvency Trustee and Senior Vice-President at Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., serving individuals and businesses throughout the Greater Toronto Area. With years of experience in insolvency cases, including financial restructuring, Brandon helps clients navigate complex financial challenges and find sustainable solutions, Starting Over Starting Now.

Tags administrative disbursements, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Cacoeli Asset Management, Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, Consumer Proposal, court approval, Court of Appeal for Ontario, court orders, court permission, Division I restructuring proposal, insolvency law, insolvency trustee court order, licensed insolvency trustee, Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada, Ontario court decision, Ontario Securities Commission, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, personal insolvency process, trustee in bankruptcy

Brandon Blog Post

ONTARIO’S FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES ACT: EXPLORING ESSENTIAL REAL ESTATE LIMITATION PERIODS

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date August 14, 2023

fraudulent conveyances act

Fraudulent Conveyances Act: Introduction

In this Brandon’s Blog, we discuss the Ontario Fraudulent Conveyances Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.29 and its elaborate implications within the substantial world of real property transactions. We will navigate the labyrinthine provisions of the Act, and enhance your understanding using a real-world example. We will also clarify the connection between the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, fraudulent conveyances and Ontario limitation periods in the realm of real estate transactions.

We will also check out the interaction between the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and limitation periods in realty transactions. Limitation periods play a considerable duty in determining when lawsuits can be brought forward, and comprehending just how they associate with fraudulent conveyances is important in navigating the intricacies of the property landscape. We will check out a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released on August 4, 2023, which clears up this whole issue.

How the Fraudulent Conveyances Act works

The Ontario Fraudulent Conveyances Act is a stunning piece of Ontario provincial law that stands as a guardian of creditors’ legal rights versus the treacherous schemes of debtors. With unfaltering willpower, this Act has been made to ward off any and all efforts by debtors to slither out of their financial obligations by slyly moving their properties to others.

In its noble search for justice, the Fraudulent Conveyances Act makes sure that creditors are protected from the conniving strategies of debtors who look to avert their obligations. This legislation supplies a strong structure for creditors to attack any kind of potentially uncertain transactions and obtain the return of any type of funds or properties that may have been cunningly relocated.

Within the realm of Ontario’s legal landscape, the Fraudulent Conveyances Act tackles the extensive duty of guarding the position of creditors versus the shrewd maneuvers entailing the surreptitious change of ownership of property, either personal or real, by individuals or corporations trying to move their assets away from the responsibility of their debt obligations through webs of deceit.

Operating as a linchpin of justice, this Fraudulent Conveyances Act plays a crucial duty in the upkeep of equity and also moral integrity within the realm of property dealings. It possesses the power to nullify those transactions that arise from the indelible mark of deceit, thereby fortifying the bedrock concepts of fairness and equity.

fraudulent conveyances act

Definition of fraudulent conveyance

Within the province of Ontario, the concept of a fraudulent conveyance takes shape as the orchestration of a maneuver wherein one or more assets, akin to pawns on a strategic board, are relocated, driven by the very purpose of ensconcing these assets beyond the reach of creditors. This type of transfer garners the label of fraudulent, a designation reflecting a means to veil and shroud property, rendering it escaping the reach of creditors.

This legislative framework, known as the Ontario Fraudulent Conveyances Act, unveils a list of specific benchmarks, all for the recognition of a transfer swathed in the cloak of deception and thus null and void. A transfer imbued with an intent to stall and thwart creditors’ aspirations or, alternatively, the transfer is one with a price tag significantly below fair market valuation. Upon a court determining that a transfer is a fraudulent conveyance, the property is undone, returning back to the debtor owner’s estate for the benefit of its creditors.

Who is covered by the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and what actions are prohibited under the Act?

The Fraudulent Conveyances Act applies to the affairs of both individuals and corporate entities. This legislation stands as a guardian, shielding the vested interests of creditors. Its purpose is to undo the webs of illicit property transfers aimed at moving property out of the reach of creditors.

Any transaction found by the court to violate the Act will be reversed. The heart of this Act aims to maintain integrity in transactions and remedy those designed to be deceitful.

fraudulent conveyances act

Importance of understanding limitation periods in business transactions

Understanding limitation periods within the world of transactions is very important in comprehending everybody’s rights. An astute grasp of limitation periods is extremely vital for any person pondering initiating a lawsuit. This is particularly true in the world of attempting to turn around deals as being in breach of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

As you will certainly see below, this is the essence of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario entailing a real estate deal that a bank was attempting to obtain reversed as contravening the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

Time Period for fraudulent conveyance actions: Limitations Act vs Real Property Limitations Act

The problem needing a decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario when it comes to Bank of Montreal v. Iskenderov, 2023 ONCA 528 (CanLII) discussed below, is, when it comes to a potentially fraudulent conveyance involving real estate, what is the limitation period?

Under the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, the restriction duration, or time period to bring a fraudulent conveyance action in Ontario is 2 years from the date of the transfer or disposition of property. However, the Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15 (RPLA) states:

“4. No person shall make an entry or distress, or bring an action to recover any land or rent, but within ten years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, first accrued to some person through whom the person making or bringing it claims, or if the right did not accrue to any person through whom that person claims, then within ten years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, first accrued to the person making or bringing it.”

When it comes to real estate, if a creditor wishes to challenge a fraudulent transfer under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, do they have a two-year window from the date of the transfer to initiate legal proceedings or a ten-year window? That is the question the Court of Appeal for Ontario answered in Bank of Montreal v. Iskenderov.

fraudulent conveyances act

The Bank of Montreal was embroiled in a legal conflict before the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The plaintiff, or respondent, is the Bank of Montreal, while the defendants, or applicants in the appeal, are Roufat Iskenderov and Elena Lazareva. At issue is the transfer of property from Mr. Iskenderov to his spouse, which the bank claimed was a fraudulent conveyance.

Initially, the motion court found in favour of the Bank of Montreal, specifying the ten-year duration applies in their litigation under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and allowing the case to proceed. Nonetheless, the applicants appealed, suggesting that a two-year period should apply.

To totally resolve the legal concern bordering which statute and limitation period applies to an action to reserve a fraudulent conveyance of real property, the appeal court assembled a five-judge panel.

In 2008, Mr. Iskenderov transferred his share of a jointly owned home to Ms. Lazareva as part of a separation agreement. In 2008, Mr. Iskenderov fraudulently defaulted on a $400,000 line of credit with the Bank of Montreal. After legal proceedings, Mr. Iskenderov filed for bankruptcy in 2009 and was discharged in 2012.

The Bank began its legal action to challenge the home transfer as fraudulent in 2013. The motion judge considered several issues, including the applicable limitation period and the discharge of a pending litigation certificate.

Here are the key points of this case:

The case involves a dispute related to a transfer of real property deemed fraudulent. The issue arises about whether the appellant should be bound by a previous court decision (*Anisman v. RPLA*) regarding the applicable limitation period.
The motion judge determined that the ten-year limitation period applies, and the action was filed within that time. There was no violation of the limitation period.
The motion judge considered the discoverability of the claim, referencing *Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick*, stating that if the two-year limitation period applied, there was a potential issue regarding when the appellant had knowledge of liability. Summary judgment might not have been granted in this case.
The motion judge decided not to discharge the certificate of pending litigation for the delay due to several reasons: a lack of evidence that the appellant had thwarted intentions to deal with the property, most of the delay caused by the appellants, the risk of prejudice to the Bank due to previous fraudulent transfer, absence of security offered to the Bank, and the Bank’s readiness for trial.
The appellants raised three issues on appeal, including whether the motion judge’s reliance on *Anisman (ONCA)* for the ten-year limitation period was a legal error. They also questioned the dismissal of the action for delay, but the motion judge ruled in favour of the Bank, extending the time for trial.
fraudulent conveyances act

In a separation agreement dated January 10, 2008, Mr. Iskenderov transferred his interest in their jointly held matrimonial home to Ms. Lazareva. On April 28, 2008, Mr. Iskenderov defaulted on a $400,000 line of credit to the Bank of Montreal, which he had obtained fraudulently.

After the Bank obtained a judgment against Mr. Iskenderov for $483,449.89 on January 14, 2009, he made an assignment into bankruptcy on March 24, 2009. He received his bankruptcy discharge in November 2012. The stay of proceedings arising from the bankruptcy was lifted by the court to enable the Bank of Montreal to proceed to pursue its judgment against him under s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (“BIA”), being a claim not discharged by his discharge from bankruptcy.

The Bank started its litigation to declare the transfer of the home a fraudulent conveyance and to set it aside under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act on June 18, 2013. On February 17, 2015, under s. 38 of the BIA, the Bank acquired from the Trustee the right to commence this action and on March 4, 2015, the Bank obtained an Assignment of Claim from the Trustee. The Bank also successfully obtained a certificate of pending litigation against the property in March 2015. The litigation “moved sluggishly along”, with delay by both parties.

The motion court needed to deal with numerous crucial concerns in the case, including whether a previous decision made by the Court of Appeal for Ontario would bind the current case. In that case (Anisman, Re) the appellate court had formerly ruled that the ten-year period under s. 4 of the RPLA related to an activity to declare a fraudulent conveyance of real property against creditors.

Additionally, the judge had to figure out whether the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act should be used in the Fraudulent Conveyances Act action as well as if there was an authentic issue for trial regarding when the Bank first had knowledge of the transfer. There was additionally the matter of whether the certificate of pending litigation ought to be discharged because of delay and whether the entire case itself needs to be rejected for the very same reason.

The motion court was not tasked with establishing whether the contested transfer was a fraudulent conveyance; that issue was scheduled for trial if the matter was not discharged either as statute-barred or for delay.

The motion judge found that:

The ten-year limitation period in the RPLA applies and the action was commenced well within that time.
If the two-year limitation period had applied, there was a triable issue regarding when the Bank had the knowledge to give it the “plausible inference” of liability. Therefore summary judgment would not have been granted but the issue would have gone for trial.
He would exercise his discretion not to lift the certificate of pending litigation.
The appellants were more responsible than the Bank for the litigation delay. The matter was ready to be set down for trial, and there is potential merit to the action. For those reasons, the motion judge declined to dismiss the action for delay and granted the Bank’s motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial.

Considerations when evaluating liability and the applicable limitation period: The Court of Appeal for Ontario analysis

During the appeal, the appellants presented three points of contention. Firstly, they challenged the motion judge’s decision to follow the Anisman (ONCA) principle, which upholds the RPLA ten-year limitation period over the Limitations Act’s two-year limitation period in an action to declare a fraudulent conveyance of real property void against creditors. Secondly, they contested the motion judge’s finding of a triable issue regarding when the Bank actually discovered that it may have a claim if the shorter Limitations Act time period applies to its action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act. Lastly, they raised concerns about the motion judge’s factual findings regarding the delays in the action, which they believed amounted to palpable and overriding errors.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario first looked at the origin of the present RPLA can be traced back to the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27 (U.K.), which has been in existence virtually unchanged since 1833. It was incorporated into the Ontario statutes in 1834 through an Act to amend the Law respecting Real Property, 1834, (U.C.) 4 Will. IV, c.

The wording of the limitation period for actions to “recover any land” in England and Ontario has remained the same over the years, although the duration of the limitation period has varied. In 1910, the provisions were moved from the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, to form Part I of the Limitations Act, S.O. 1910, c. 34, where they remained until 2004. Parts II and III of the old Act were revoked, and Part I was renamed as the RPLA.

The appeal court held that before the enactment of the new Act, s. 4 of the RPLA or its equivalent provisions were never applied to an action for a fraudulent conveyance of land.

After reviewing appropriate case law, the five appellate judges unanimously agreed on all points of law, including:

The Fraudulent Conveyance Act doesn’t revert property to the grantor; it removes obstacles to the creditor’s recovery and allows additional remedies.
Successful creditors in a fraudulent conveyance action don’t necessarily need property return; a court declaration of conveyance as “void against” them suffices
An Order under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act doesn’t change property title, but creditors can treat the transferee’s property as liable for debts.
Fraudulent conveyance actions do not result in the recovery of land rights; the conveyance is voided.
The Fraudulent Conveyances Act statute aims to enable creditors to execute against the land for debts owed by the transferor.
The interpretation of “an action to recover any land” in the RPLA differs from its application in fraudulent conveyance cases.
“To recover any land” doesn’t mean to regain lost property, but to obtain land by court judgment.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the Limitations Act, 2002 and not the RPLA applies to fraudulent conveyance actions. Therefore, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal by Roufat Iskenderov and Elena Lazareva and made the following orders:

The applicable limitation period for the fraudulent conveyance action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act is two years from the date of discovery of the claim by the respondent under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002.
The discoverability issue shall be tried together with the fraudulent conveyance issue and set down for trial in accordance with the order of the motion judge.
Costs of the appeal to the appellants in the agreed amount of $7,500.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

So there is now going to be a trial of the issue of whether the Bank of Montreal was on time or not in bringing its action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, now that it has been settled that the limitation period for bringing the action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act is a two-year time limit.

Fraudulent Conveyances Act: Conclusion

I hope you enjoyed this Fraudulent Conveyances Act Brandon’s Blog. It is important for everyone to understand what constitutes a fraudulent conveyance of property, either personal property or real estate, especially when the person or company transferring the property is insolvent. Problems with making ends meet are a growing concern in Canada, affecting individuals of all ages and income levels.

Creating a solid financial plan can be the key to unlocking a brighter and more prosperous future. By taking control of your finances, you can prioritize your expenses, set clear financial goals, and build a strong foundation for your dreams to come true. With the right mindset and approach, financial planning can empower you to regain control, eliminate this issue as a source of stress in your life and find peace of mind.

Individuals must take proactive measures to address financial difficulties and promptly seek assistance when necessary. It is crucial to recognize that financial stress is a prevalent concern and seeking help is a demonstration of fortitude, rather than vulnerability. Should you encounter challenges in managing your finances and find yourself burdened by stress, do not delay in pursuing aid.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing people, entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses with debt problems that are in financial distress. Are you now worried about just how you or your business are going to survive? Are you worried about what your fiduciary obligations are and not sure if the decisions you are about to make are the correct ones to avoid personal liability? Those concerns are obviously on your mind.

The Ira Smith Team understands these financial health concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own and it does not mean that you are a bad person. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team uses innovative and cutting-edge methodologies, to adeptly navigate you through the intricacies of your financial challenges, ensuring a resolution to your debt-related predicaments without resorting to the rigours of the bankruptcy process. We can get you debt relief now!

We have helped many entrepreneurs and their insolvent companies who thought that consulting with a Trustee and receiver meant their company would go bankrupt. On the contrary. We helped turn their companies around through financial restructuring.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you.

The Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team understands that people facing money problems require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you and end the discomfort you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will listen to the unique issues facing you and provide you with practical and actionable ideas you can implement right away to end the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

Tags Anisman (ONCA), Bank of Montreal v. Iskenderov, Court of Appeal for Ontario, fraudulent conveyance, fraudulent conveyance actions, fraudulent conveyances act, Ira Smith Trustee, limitations act, motion judge, personal property, real property, real property limitations act, two-year limitation period

Brandon Blog Post

ONTARIO FAMILY LAW: DETAILED ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ALLOWS WIFE’S CLAIM OVER HUSBAND’S CREDITOR

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date May 22, 2023

family law

Family law introduction

An important decision was rendered by the Court of Appeal for Ontario on April 26, 2023. It is in a recent case concerning the sale of a matrimonial home through family law proceedings. In this case, the court considered the division of net family property between Subhathini Senthillmohan (wife) and her separated husband Sockalingam Senthillmohan (husband) the claims of the wife and a creditor of the husband.

This ruling carries significant weight for couples, irrespective of whether they are happily married or going through a divorce. The ramifications of this verdict extend to couples who jointly own a property as tenants in common, regardless of their marital status or if family law matters are in play.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I explore the recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling on a wife’s claim over her husband’s creditor in the sale of the matrimonial home. I discuss the implications of the ruling for couples going through a divorce and how it can protect a spouse’s interest in the home.

As you will see below, even If you’re not going through family law issues in Ontario, this Brandon’s Blog shows how the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling provides important information on your rights and obligations under the law.

This Brandon’s Blog is not a substitute for legal counsel experienced in family law, as we are not lawyers. However, if you are in a similar situation as the joint tenants described below, or even if you are not involved in family court proceedings or a contentious family law matter, it is possible that you may encounter similar legal issues concerning joint ownership of property where your joint property owner is an insolvent debtor. It is essential to communicate your situation to your legal representative and obtain sound advice and legal representation to ensure you are fully aware of your legal rights.

Family law: Background of the case

The case is Senthillmohan v. Senthillmohan, 2023 ONCA 280. The parties were married still but separated, and in January 2020, the wife brought an application seeking an unequal division of the net family property. Alternatively, she sought an equalization of net family property and the sale of their matrimonial home. Even though they were going through family law proceedings for divorce, the wife remained living in the home, which was jointly owned by both of them as joint tenants.

The default judgment held by the third-party creditor, 2401242 Ontario Inc., was the result of a civil suit. However, they later agreed to lift the order to aid in the smooth sale of the matrimonial home. Meanwhile, the wife sought an urgent family law court order to dissolve their joint ownership of the property, and a ruling that they now held title to the matrimonial home as tenants in common.

The creditor’s default judgment came from a civil lawsuit. The creditor filed a writ of seizure and sale in September 2021. The husband and wife entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to sell the home in October 2021, and the home ultimately sold for $1.9M. The creditor agreed to lift the judgment to facilitate the sale of the matrimonial home.

The net sale proceeds, after the discharge of secured encumbrances, were approximately $925,000. In the interim, the wife took immediate legal action by seeking a court order to terminate the couple’s joint ownership of the property and to establish their title to the matrimonial home as tenants in common. The order was obtained with the consent of the husband. The order was silent on the effective date of the severance and does not address the claim of the third-party creditor or its default judgment against the husband.

family law

Family law: The lower court decision

The lower court made an order for the sale of the matrimonial home, with the funds being held in trust until a mutual agreement is entered into or a court order is made regarding equalization. In making its order, the lower court changed the ownership from joint tenants to tenants in common.

She claimed that her very interest in the matrimonial home took precedence over that of the creditor. After considering every one of the arguments provided by both sides, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice inevitably ruled in favour of the wife. The court stated that the wife’s ownership interest was in priority to that of the creditor.

In February 2022, the wife filed a motion seeking the release of her 50% share of the net sale proceeds. The judgment creditor contended that the husband and wife were joint tenants at the time of the default judgment and writ filing, hence it had priority over the wife’s interest in the sale proceeds.

Nevertheless, the motion judge dismissed this argument and determined that the joint tenancy had been severed by the time the third-party creditor acquired the default judgment against the husband.

The third-party creditor was dissatisfied with the ruling and proceeded to appeal the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal with the intention of having it reversed.

Family law: The OCA ruling

The creditor lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, asserting that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge had erred in ruling that the joint tenancy of the marital home had been retroactively divided and that the wife possessed entitlement over the creditor’s writ. Additionally, the creditor contended that the judge had neglected to take into account the writ affixed to the total net proceeds of a voluntary sale of the jointly-owned property.

The creditor contended that joint tenants are, for all intents and purposes, a single owner until the joint tenancy is dissolved, thereby affording a creditor the entitlement to make a claim against the entire interest. However, the Court of Appeal for Ontario duly rejected the creditor’s appeal, concluding that a creditor is unable to lay hold of the interest of a joint tenant who is not indebted.

The court went on to say that the creditor was fundamentally mistaken with respect to the law governing creditors’ remedies vis-à-vis jointly-held assets, where only one of the owners had liability for the debt.

The court explained the process of seizure and sale in Ontario. They stated that the execution registered on title can only be against the debtor’s exigible interest in the land held in joint tenancy. Additionally, the court held that in the case of joint property ownership, in the event of one joint tenant’s death, the remaining tenant inherits the entire interest in the property due to their right of survivorship.

The court’s ruling is a beacon of hope for partners or couples who hold property together jointly. It reinforces the idea that no creditor can take away the rights of a non-debtor joint tenant who acquires a property through the right of survivorship.

The Court of Appeal in Ontario nodded in agreement with the motion judge’s decision and ultimately dismissed the appeal. In their ruling, the court explicitly stated that the motion judge applied the proper legal principles of joint tenancy, including its severance and the priority of interests.

Despite the order being silent on the effective date of severance, the court ultimately found that the motion judge was correct in his decision to sever the joint tenancy in the matrimonial home. Interestingly, the creditor did not seek clarification of the order, leaving room for speculation as to why. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge had taken into consideration the unique facts and circumstances surrounding the case and determined that there was indeed enough evidence to support the severance of the joint tenancy.

The court firmly rejected the argument put forward by the third-party creditor, which claimed that the motion judge did not have the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case. Furthermore, the court determined that the motion judge had effectively and properly exercised his discretion in denying the creditor’s request for an adjournment.

The lawyer representing the wife made cost submissions and achieved a favourable outcome in securing costs. The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the wife’s entitlement to compensation and granted an award of $20,000, which includes HST and other expenses incurred during the legal proceedings.

family law

Family law: Implications of the ruling

The court’s ruling has far-reaching consequences, not only for couples undergoing divorce proceedings in Ontario but also for any joint owners of the property where one of them has outstanding debts or judgments while the other does not. Essentially, the non-debtor partner’s right to the property takes precedence over any claims by creditors in most situations. This decision offers much-needed protection for joint owners who may be at risk of losing their property due to their partner’s debts.

It’s worth noting that this ruling applies exclusively to the sale of the matrimonial home and has no impact on a creditor’s ability to seize other assets or property owned solely by the debtor who owes the money. It’s important to bear in mind that this ruling does not affect the rights of mortgagees in any way. As stated previously, the mortgages were paid off, and the legal dispute concerned only the net sale proceeds.

This court ruling is applicable not only to married couples going through divorce proceedings but also to joint owners of real property where one of the owners has unpaid personal income tax or owes money for director liability, such as unpaid corporate HST or unremitted employee source deductions, to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). If the debtor does not make satisfactory arrangements with the CRA for repayment, the tax authority can obtain a judgment against that person from a federal court without serving notice to them.

Following that, the CRA can register the judgment against the joint owner’s interest in the real estate, a process known as registering a Memorial. This registration can affect only the joint owner who owes the debt and not the other joint owner who is not indebted to the CRA. It is not related to family law and is applicable even if there are no divorce proceedings underway.

This court ruling not only benefits family law proceedings but also reinforces our position in insolvency proceedings that the non-bankrupt, non-insolvent joint owner’s stake in the property is not impacted by the other joint owner’s insolvency or bankruptcy case. In the event of personal bankruptcy, the licensed insolvency trustee who is overseeing the bankruptcy would take control of the bankrupt joint owner’s interest in the property. While there may only be one buyer for that interest, the other joint owner would be the logical purchaser. However, these are economic concerns rather than legal issues.

Family law conclusion

I hope you enjoyed this family law Brandon’s Blog. Managing your personal or business financial affairs in today’s ever-challenging and changing business landscape is no small feat, but with the right plan in place, it’s possible to stay or get back on track.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing people, entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. Are you now worried about just how you or your business are going to survive? Are you worried about what your fiduciary obligations are and not sure if the decisions you are about to make are the correct ones to avoid personal liability? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. Coming out of the pandemic, we are also now worried about the economic effects of inflation and a potential recession.

The Ira Smith Team understands these concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt problems while avoiding bankruptcy proceedings. We can get you debt relief now.

We have helped many entrepreneurs and their insolvent companies who thought that consulting with a trustee and receiver meant their company would go bankrupt. On the contrary. We helped turn their companies around through financial restructuring.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you.

family law

Tags contentious family law, cost submissions, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Family Court, family court proceedings, family law, family law issues, family law matters, Family law proceedings, family property, Ira Smith Trustee, legal counsel, legal issues, legal representation, legal rights, Ontario Court of Appeal, Superior Court of Justice

Brandon Blog Post

DECLARING BANKRUPTCY: REAL ESTATE COMPANY LOSES CHALLENGE ON CORPORATE BANKRUPTCY APPEAL

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date May 2, 2022

Declaring bankruptcy: Business insolvency

When the corporate finances are such that the business has an insufficient cash flow to cover its operating expenses and pay its debts when they come due, these financial difficulties create the financial condition of insolvency for the business. Another indicator of insolvency often exists at the same time: if you were to sell all of the company’s assets, you would not be able to raise enough money to pay off its outstanding debt.

Medcap Real Estate Holdings Inc. (Medcap) is an Ontario corporation that owns certain commercial real estate. Medcap’s principal, through other companies which he owns or controls, operates various fitness facilities.

Several creditors made a bankruptcy application to the Court to wind up Medcap’s business through a corporate bankruptcy. In December 2021, the Judge released his decision to issue a bankruptcy order and place the company in the legal position of bankruptcy. Medcap appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I discuss the two ways there are for declaring bankruptcy and highlight the reasoning of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in dismissing this company’s appeal for its corporate bankruptcy.

Declaring bankruptcy: An overview of corporate bankruptcy

In Canada, a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders or Directors and Officers. So a company can go into corporate bankruptcy, as opposed to a person entering personal bankruptcy, also known as consumer bankruptcy. There are two ways a company (or a person) can go bankrupt.

The first way is that a company (or person) files for bankruptcy by filing an assignment in bankruptcy with a licensed insolvency trustee. This is called a voluntary assignment into bankruptcy. The second way, which is what happened to Medcap, is that they are pushed into bankruptcy.

To push a limited company (person) into bankruptcy, one or more creditors, each owed at least $1,000, make a bankruptcy application to the court. The application will include a sworn affidavit from the people with knowledge of the situation providing evidence as to why the company (the person) is insolvent, what acts of bankruptcy the business (person) committed within 6 months preceding the date of the application and requesting that a bankruptcy order be made against the debtor.

Regardless of the types of bankruptcy proceedings that may be involved, these are the only two ways for companies with crippling debt to become bankrupt. It is either voluntary or an involuntary one.

declaring bankruptcy

Declaring bankruptcy: Types of Corporate Bankruptcy

A company that ends up declaring bankruptcy may be doing so for a variety of reasons, all of which relate to significant financial losses. In Canada, there are two primary types of bankruptcy filings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

Once the company is insolvent and no longer viable, declaring bankruptcy in order to have liquidation of assets and end the business in that legal entity is the next step. In this situation, there may be certain business debts that are also a personal liability of the corporate Directors. Unremitted source deductions and HST and unpaid wages and vacation pay fall into this category.

Bankruptcy is a tricky topic. Many people tend to fear it, thinking of it as the end of the road. Given my description above of bankruptcy being for liquidating the company assets, that is understandable.

But what about the company that is insolvent but the business is very viable if the bad parts are cut out? In this kind of situation, filing under the BIA using the restructuring provisions of this federal statute, or for larger companies, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), is a legal way for the company to restructure its debts to get its finances back in order. In a successful restructuring, the good parts of the business are restructured and preserved, the company’s finances are right-sized and most if not all jobs are saved. This form of declaring bankruptcy is what is referred to in the media as bankruptcy protection.

So in Canada, declaring bankruptcy is one type, but declaring bankruptcy protection is also possible. That is why I suggest in Canada, there are 2 types of business-specific options in corporate bankruptcy filings.

Declaring bankruptcy: Does corporate bankruptcy affect personal assets?

The legal separation of personal and corporate assets is clear. However, a company declaring bankruptcy may have an impact on the personal assets of certain people. There are situations where personal assets may be at risk. If you are concerned about your personal assets, you should consult with a legal professional to assess your individual case.

Before making any business or investment decisions, is when you should get that professional advice. Once a corporate bankruptcy filing has been made, it will be too late to properly plan for that situation. Personal assets could be at risk if it is a bankruptcy liquidation and not a successful restructuring.

Examples of when personal assets may be at risk because of business bankruptcies include:

the entrepreneur who had to give a personal guarantee of certain corporate debt financial obligations to the company’s primary secured creditor lender and in a liquidation of the company’s assets, the lender suffers a shortfall;
there is not enough money left over from the liquidation after any trust claims and secured creditor claims to pay the outstanding wages and vacation pay so the Directors’ personal assets may be at risk;
the liquidation value of the assets is essentially zero so the Directors are called upon by Canada Revenue Agency to repay any unremitted employee source deductions or HST amounts;
in bankruptcy liquidation, there is generally nothing available to repay investors or shareholders so the money an individual investor or shareholder loses certainly affects their personal assets and personal property. The stock of companies that liquidated their assets after declaring bankruptcy is worthless; and
any creditors that are unincorporated, being either a proprietorship or partnership who lose some or all of the amounts owed to them as ordinary unsecured creditors clearly affect the personal assets of those business owners.

Declaring bankruptcy: The Medcap case

With this discussion of corporations declaring bankruptcy, there are some interesting points to be learned from the Medcap appeal case and the bankruptcy process. The application judge dismissed the bankruptcy applications of all but one of the applicants. He issued the bankruptcy order and appointed the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy or bankruptcy trustee) which began Medcap’s administration of bankruptcy.

The Medcap company appealed the bankruptcy order on only one ground; the judge who made the original order failed to exercise his discretion on whether or not to dismiss the application. Medcap did not appeal the application judge’s finding that the prerequisites to the making of a bankruptcy order – a debt owing to an applicant of at least $1,000 and the commission of an act of bankruptcy within six months of the commencement of the application – had been met!

The most interesting part of the Court of Appeal’s decision is the discussion of the two factors that a court could look at where a judge could exercise discretion to justify refusing an otherwise proven bankruptcy application.

declaring bankruptcy

Declaring bankruptcy: Appealing a bankruptcy order

As mentioned previously, Medcap did not contest the judge’s conclusion that the creditor whose bankruptcy application was allowed had met the requirements under s. 43(1) of the BIA. This is that Medcap owed them a debt exceeding $1,000 and that Medcap committed an act of bankruptcy within 6 months before the filing of that bankruptcy application.

The application judge found that Medcap had failed to pay that creditor’s debt, for which a judgment was issued, despite demands. This is defined as an act of bankruptcy in s. 42(1)(j) of the BIA. In its appeal, the Medcap company argued that, even though the debt and the act of bankruptcy were proven, the application judge made a mistake by not using his discretionary power under s. 43(7) of the BIA to dismiss the application.

Medcap made three arguments to support its appeal: (i) that the trial judge erred in finding that Medcap was unable to pay its debts; (ii) that he erred in finding that the application was brought for an improper motive; and (iii) that he erred in finding that the bankruptcy order would serve no purpose.

Let’s see what the Court of Appeal for Ontario said about this.

Declaring bankruptcy: Unable to pay its debts

This is the first of the three bankruptcy issues that the Court of Appeal looked at. Medcap argued that the application judge dismissed the applications of all applicants but one because there was potential that they were not creditors. Medcap also stated that the application judge had not taken into account that Medcap had reached a settlement with the one creditor whose application was allowed to be heard. Medcap submitted that the application judge erred in not taking this into account as there was no debt owing because of the settlement and the payment of that settlement.

The appellate court found that the lower court judge did not err in rejecting Medcap’s argument. An application for bankruptcy is not solely for the benefit of the applicant creditor, but for the rights of creditors, ALL creditors. Further, the arrangements between the applicant creditor and the debtor will not be able to justify the withdrawal or dismissal of a bankruptcy application, unless the court is satisfied that the debtor is solvent and that other creditors will not be prejudiced by the withdrawal or dismissal.

To be able to pay debts as set out in the BIA, the evidence must be provided for all debts owed, as well as the debtor’s ability to pay them. In other words, the debtor must prove that they are solvent. Medcap did not provide such evidence. Therefore this ground of appeal was dismissed.

Declaring bankruptcy: Bankruptcy application for improper motives

Medcap argued that in cases where a creditor has an ulterior motive for filing a bankruptcy application, this can be sufficient cause for dismissal of the application. The Court of Appeal said that the existence of a motive is a question of fact, and the application judge considered and rejected the suggestion that there was such a motive in this case.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge was within his rights to reject the argument based on the record. Therefore, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found no justification to interfere and dismissed the appeal on that ground. declaring bankruptcy

Declaring bankruptcy: There is no purpose for this bankruptcy

Medcap argued that the application judge erred in failing to find that no purpose would be served by bankruptcy. He ought to have dismissed the application on the basis that there was nothing to be gained by making a bankruptcy order.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that safeguarding creditors is crucial to insolvency proceedings. A debtor who has (a) committed an act of bankruptcy by not paying debts when they come due, and (b) failed to provide evidence to the court demonstrating the ability to do so, carries the burden of proving that bankruptcy would be pointless. The judge was correct in finding that Medcap had not met that burden.

The three-panel judge went on to say that, in order to demonstrate that there is no purpose for the Medcap bankruptcy, they would need to show that a better result would be achieved for creditors if it were allowed time to restructure under the commercial proposal provisions of the BIA or the provisions of the CCAA.

Medcap did not argue that doing either would have the requisite creditor support but rather suggested that leaving it up to them would be best.

The three appellate court judges hearing this case unanimously rejected Medcap’s appeal, upholding the lower court’s ruling and allowing the bankruptcy process legal proceedings to continue. At this point, the licensed trustee named in the bankruptcy order begins administering the bankruptcy legal process.

Declaring bankruptcy: The final word

What fascinated me most about this case was the nerve of Medcap to argue that the application judge should have declined to make the bankruptcy order, regardless of all the evidence against it.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario soundly rejected the appeal of the bankruptcy order being issued after analyzing the bankruptcy application process in Canada. It concluded that only a real possibility of a successful restructuring under either the BIA or CCAA to avoid bankruptcy liquidation would be a reason to do so.

I hope this Brandon’s Blog on the Medcap case was helpful to you in understanding more about declaring bankruptcy, corporate bankruptcy and how the Ontario court would decide if it was appropriate to issue a bankruptcy order. Hopefully, you have also gained insight into how a corporate bankruptcy decision is made and how a successful corporate bankruptcy protection filing and restructuring can be beneficial.

We understand how you feel. You’re stressed out and anxious because you can’t fix your or your company’s financial situation on your own. But don’t worry. As a government-licensed insolvency professional firm, we can help you get your personal or corporate finances back on track.

If you’re struggling with money problems, call the Ira Smith Team today. We’ll work with you to develop a personalized plan to get you back on track and stress-free, all while avoiding the bankruptcy process if at all possible.

Call us today and get back on the path to a healthy stress-free life.

Brandon Blog Post

INHERITANCE DURING BANKRUPTCY: OUR BEST ANSWER TO HOW IS AN INHERITANCE TREATED IN A BANKRUPTCY?

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date April 4, 2022

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Family situations

Your assets are considered yours in Canada. In other words, if during your bankruptcy you inherit money from a family member, the property belongs to the bankruptcy estate. Your property, including cash, will be distributed by your licensed insolvency trustee (“Trustee”) to your unsecured creditors.

Whenever an insolvent person comes to us for a free consultation, we always inquire whether or not the insolvent person is in line to inherit anything in the near future. Our recommendations will depend on the answer.

Many Canadians wonder whether the bankruptcy process will affect their inheritance. The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently reviewed a bankruptcy judge’s decision that bankruptcy would impact an estate in Richards (Re), 2022 ONCA 216 (CanLII).

This Brandon’s Blog examines this Court of Appeal decision about inheritance during bankruptcy. The case looks at would you lose your inheritance if you filed for bankruptcy, or can you use family situations to protect it from your creditors and eventually be able to get it back?

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Bankruptcy, winnings, gifts, inheritance property and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

Section 67 (1)(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (“BIA” ) sets out the bankruptcy law and the bankruptcy procedure regarding the property of the bankrupt as:

“all property wherever situated of the bankrupt at the date of the bankruptcy or that may be acquired by or devolve on the bankrupt before their discharge, including any refund owing to the bankrupt under the Income Tax Act in respect of the calendar year — or the fiscal year of the bankrupt if it is different from the calendar year — in which the bankrupt became a bankrupt…”

This includes any assets that you own as of the date you filed for bankruptcy, as well as any assets that you have acquired after filing for bankruptcy and before you get your bankruptcy discharge. Additionally, it includes assets that you were entitled to but hid or contracted out of.

There are two parts to that sentence that are simple, but the second part is more complicated. Gifts, lottery winnings, inheritance during bankruptcy, and any other unexpected financial gain are included in this category.

Inheritance during bankruptcy

Inheritance during bankruptcy: What happens if I receive property, assets or an inheritance while I am bankrupt?

Receiving an inheritance or gift of a property while in bankruptcy can be a mixed blessing. A gift or inheritance can relieve financial stress by allowing you to pay off debts that would otherwise require you to file for bankruptcy. Receiving assets, property, or inheritances during bankruptcy will be for the benefit of creditors and will also affect how your bankruptcy file is handled including your discharge, as well as whether you were really qualified for bankruptcy at all. Of course, timing is everything.

The reason is the section of the BIA I quoted above. Your windfall could have paid off all your creditors without making an assignment in bankruptcy if it was large enough. In the event that it happens during your period of bankruptcy and before you apply for discharge, but the windfall is not large enough to pay off all your debts, it will affect the type of discharge from bankruptcy you may be able to get, whether it is an automatic discharge or a conditional discharge.

If it occurs after you have made your bankruptcy filing and is large enough to pay off all your debts, then perhaps you can apply to annul the bankruptcy. So all of these factors have to be taken into consideration when you experience an inheritance during bankruptcy or if you otherwise have a windfall.

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Will I lose my Inheritance in a bankruptcy?

By now, you should know that you will lose whatever part of your inheritance during bankruptcy. It will be whatever portion is required to pay off your creditors in full (plus interest). But what happens to an inheritance during bankruptcy if you try to contract out of receiving your inheritance if you are an undischarged bankrupt? Can the Will or trust set up that provides you with the inheritance be used to stop you from losing it during your bankruptcy?

That is what the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision in Richards (Re), 2022 ONCA 216 (CanLII) is all about which I will now describe.

Michael Richards filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal for Ontario on March 11, 2022, challenging the bankruptcy judge’s order from June 3, 2021. The issue at stake concerned the interpretation of a trust of which Mr. Richards was a beneficiary (the “Trust”).

A judgment against him was owed to The Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) for $987,613 plus costs and interest. Mr. Richards was struggling financially. RBC filed a Bankruptcy Application against him on September 16, 2019. The Bankruptcy Order was issued the same day.

A trust set up by his father in 2001 gives Mr. Richards the right to either the property at 61 St. Clair Avenue West or the proceeds of its sale (the “Property”). His parents were able to live in the house during their lives, with a life interest in the Property. In 2010, his father died. His mother remained in the Property and she died in July 2020. The date of death of the second parent is called the “Time of Division” in the Trust.

Before his mother died, the trustees of the Trust sold the property with the net proceeds from the sale, totalling $1,172,120.90, held in trust. Trust funds had to be distributed to Mr. Richards if he was alive at the time of division. Obviously, he was.

Inheritance during bankruptcy

Inheritance during bankruptcy: RBC and section 38 of the BIA

In October 2020, RBC obtained an order under s. 38 of the BIA (the “s. 38 order”). Section 38 allows one or more creditors to take an assignment of a claim or action that the Trustee may have if the Trustee is unable or unwilling to enforce that claim or action.

The s. 38 order gave RBC (in this case alone) an assignment of rights of the Trustee of the bankrupt estate to make a claim against the sale proceeds of the Property. The Trustee had not wanted to pursue the claim due to a lack of funding. RBC now stood in the shoes of the Trustee with respect to the sale proceeds of the Property.

RBC filed a motion to recoup the sale proceeds up to the amount owed to them (including the costs of the s. 38 action). They sought a declaration that Mr. Richards was the beneficiary of the Trust and had an interest in the Property under the terms of the Trust. RBC argued that the sale proceeds should go towards satisfying their outstanding debt because it was the property of the bankrupt.

Inheritance during bankruptcy: The undischarged bankrupt’s position

Mr. Richards responded that his interest in the Property was suspended while he is bankrupt, under the provisions of a different section of the document establishing the Trust. That very unusual provision reads as follows:

“Any right of a Beneficiary to receive any income or capital of the Trust Fund…. shall be enforceable only until such Beneficiary shall become bankrupt … whereupon… the Beneficiary’s Interest shall cease until the cause of the Beneficiary’s Interest becoming vested in or belonging to or being payable to a person other than such Beneficiary shall have ceased to exist … and then the Beneficiary’s Interest shall again be allocated to such Beneficiary as aforesaid unless and until a like or similar event shall happen whereupon the Beneficiary’s Interest of such Beneficiary shall again cease and so on from time to time.”

Mr. Richards submitted that his interest in the Property could not vest in his Trustee as he had no rights to the Property until such time as he was discharged from bankruptcy. He contended that, during his bankruptcy, any rights he had were suspended. It is only on his discharge from bankruptcy that the Property will vest in him and only then will he own it outright.

Inheritance during bankruptcy

Inheritance during bankruptcy: The trial judge’s decision

The bankruptcy judge overseeing the bankruptcy case trial held that the Property vested in Mr. Richards at the Time of Division. This meant that the Property was his and vested in his Trustee upon becoming bankrupt. Since the Trustee had transferred its rights in the action against the Property to RBC, the bank was legally entitled to receive the proceeds of sale up to the amount owed.

Inheritance during bankruptcy: The Court of Appeal for Ontario decision

The Court of Appeal for Ontario made a very clear and concise decision. It said that Mr. Richards had not shown any mistakes in the bankruptcy judge’s decision. The appellate court ruled that her interpretation of the Trust document was entitled to deference on review, stating that it agreed with her interpretation. The court found that her interpretation was consistent with the plain wording of the relevant section and also consistent with the stated purpose of the Trust.

This case demonstrates that actions that violate the public policy underpinning the BIA by individuals trying to shield their assets from creditors are not tolerated.

Inheritance during bankruptcy

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Could the inheritance have been shielded from the creditors?

In the beginning, I want to make it clear that I am not a lawyer and I do not give advice to insolvent people on how to protect their assets from their secured creditors, preferred creditors or unsecured ordinary creditors. Instead, given these specific facts, can I think of a way the Trust could have been structured differently?

When the Trust was prepared, obviously his parents were concerned about their son’s financial situation and legal proceedings against him. Rather than having the Property transferred to him at the Time of Division, the Trust should have kept the cash from the sale of the real property invested and paid Mr. Richards a monthly allowance for life.

That monthly allowance could not have been treated directly as his property. Rather, it would be considered part of his income, subject to the surplus income rule. Mr. Richards may have very well may have had to make surplus income payments to his Trustee as part of getting his bankruptcy discharge, but the bulk of the inheritance could have been shielded from his creditors.

Inheritance during bankruptcy: With the right Trust personal bankruptcies can be avoided

If the Trust was worded as I suggest, only providing Mr. Richards with a lifetime allowance but never able to have the asset itself transferred to his ownership, Mr. Richards could have avoided bankruptcy altogether. He could have filed a Proposal.

If his financial situation was such that he owed $250,000 or less, he could have filed a consumer proposal. If he owed more than $250,000, it would be a Division I BIA restructuring proposal. Either way, he would have avoided filing for bankruptcy or having a Bankruptcy Order made against him.

Although the RBC judgement against him was an ordinary unsecured claim, without their vote in favour of his proposal, it could not have succeeded. However, with the differing approach for the Trust that I suggested, it would not give RBC access to the entire amount of cash. They would have been facing the reality that they would not have been able to collect in full on their judgement for a very long time. There wouldn’t be a pot of money to attack.

This is how Mr. Richards’s parents could have made sure that the inheritance was protected for him and shielded from his creditors.

Inheritance during bankruptcy

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Summary

In conclusion, the BIA allows a bankrupt’s assets to distribute property to creditors based on a “just and equitable” standard.

I hope you found this inheritance during bankruptcy Brandon’s Blog. Are you on the edge of insolvency? Are bill collectors hounding you? Are you ducking all your phone calls to the point where your voicemail box is always full?

If so, you need to call me today. As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) we are the only professionals licensed, recognized as well as supervised by the federal government to give insolvency assistance. We are also the only authorized party in Canada to apply remedies under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). I can definitely help you to choose what is best for you to free you from your financial debt issues.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so we can get free you from the stress, anxiety, and discomfort that your cash issues have created. With the distinct roadmap, we establish simply for you, we will without delay return you right to a healthy and balanced problem-free life, Starting Over Starting Now.

Brandon Blog Post

WHERE IS LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY WITH ITS HELPFUL CONCLUSIVE COMPENSATION CLA1MS PROCESS?

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date July 28, 2021

where is laurentian university

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Where is Laurentian University in dealing with ‘An ugly stain for years to come’: Laurentian University students, staff reeling from cuts

As regular Brandon Blog readers know, I have been writing about the financial difficulties leading to the Laurentian University creditor protection filing under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) as major events unfolded. The filing for bankruptcy protection was to allow for ongoing operations to continue and to come up with a Plan of Arrangement to deal with creditor claims.

The end of this week was scheduled to be another milestone in the Laurentian CCAA insolvency process, but it appears that event won’t happen on time. The purpose of this Brandon Blog is to discuss where is Laurentian University at with its compensation claim process for current and terminated faculty and staff?

Laurentian University situation so dire, it couldn’t afford to pay staff

This post-secondary institution faced a cash crisis and many financial issues leading to having filed its application for creditor protection on February 1, 2021. So far, I have written on:

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY FACING INSOLVENCY MAKES STARTLING CCAA NEWS FILING FOR CREDITOR PROTECTION. I wrote about what creditor protection in the Canadian context is for companies under financial strain and why Laurentian University did so.
LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY INSOLVENCY RESTRUCTURING – OUR UPDATED GUIDE ON ITS MASSIVE CUTS TO GAIN FINANCIAL HEALTH. I discussed what went wrong in this Northern Ontario Sudbury-based university leading to the Laurentian University insolvency restructuring.
LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY IN SUDBURY: THE LAURENTIAN FEDERATED UNIVERSITIES SUFFERED A CRUSHING DEFEAT. I explained the court rulings in favour of Laurentian University in Sudbury in its effort to terminate all of its federated agreements with the independent universities: the University of Sudbury, Thorneloe University and Huntington University.
COMPANIES’ CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT: CREDITORS ARE NOW ABLE TO MAKE BOLD CLAIMS AGAINST LAURENTIAN. I wrote about the CCAA Claims Process having begun, other than for compensation claims of current and terminated faculty and staff. I described the rules for creditors to file their claims.
LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY OF SUDBURY: LAURENTIAN SCORES HUGE WIN OVER THORNELOE UNIVERSITY. I discussed the Laurentian University of Sudbury decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning the request of one of the independent universities, Thorneloe University.
CUSHMAN WAKEFIELD TORONTO: COURT READILY APPOINTS FIRM TO REVIEW LAURENTIAN’S MASSIVE REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS. I discussed the Cushman Wakefield Toronto appointment as the Sudbury school plans a real estate review in Phase 2 of its court-guided restructuring process. The purpose of the independent third-party review is to see what Laurentian University might sell to get out of its financial hole and get it back onto a proper financial footing.

Where is Laurentian University with the Amended and Restated Claims Process Order?

I previously wrote about the Laurentian University Amended and Restated Claims Process Order (A&R Claims Process Order) when it was obtained from the Court on May 31, 2021.

Among other things, the A&R Claims Process Order developed a claims process to recognize, identify and deal with certain claims of creditors. The A&R Claims Process Order left out Compensation Claims to allow Laurentian, with the help of the Monitor and in discussions with the Laurentian University Faculty Association (LUFA) and also Laurentian University Staff Union (LUSU), to establish a process as well as a method for the identification of Compensation Claims.

Compensation Claims usually consist of the claims of current and previous employees, retirees, and also the labour unions relative to employment, benefits, pension, and/or labour contracts among the stakeholders and Laurentian University, and also claims of specific third parties relative to involvement of their employees in the retirement health benefit plan.

In their application to Court last May, Laurentian University told the Court that they would be back to have the Compensation Claims process approved no later than July 30, 2021.

Where is Laurentian University with its creditor protection compensation claims program now?

Laurentian told the Court that its Compensation Claims process will:

develop the key groups of claims to be covered in a Compensation Claims
procedure;
determine what info and also how the information needed to calculate such
claims can be assembled based upon the information in the hands of Laurentian and third-party service providers;
develop the Compensation Claims Methodology; and
think about alternate procedures for notice as well as claims handling.

In its motion record dated July 23, 2021, Laurentian has advised the Court that although it is working diligently with the Monitor, LUFA and LUSA, Laurentian will not be able to serve materials explaining its Compensation Claims process in time to seek Court approval no later than July 30. So, Laurentian is asking for an extension from July 30 to August 20, 2021. In the motion record, it is not stated exactly where is Laurentian University in this process. Laurentian has advised that its lawyers have booked time with the Court to hear the motion on August 17, 2021, at 9:30 AM.

UPDATE: On July 28, 2021, the Court approved amending paragraph 46 of the Claims Process Order to extend the date that Laurentian University must bring a motion to the Court to seek approval of: (a) the Compensation Claims Methodology, and (b) the process for notification of Employees and claims process, from “no later than July 30, 2021” to “no later than August 20, 2021”.

***Where is Laurentian University? Ask current President* *Dr. Robert Haché***

In support of this motion for an extension of time, the motion material includes the affidavit of Dr. Robert Haché, University President and Vice-Chancellor of Laurentian University of Sudbury, sworn on July 23 (the Haché Affidavit).

The Haché Affidavit really doesn’t say much and unfortunately, it does not say exactly where is Laurentian University in the finalization of the Compensation Claims process. It summarizes the background about the bilingual university financial troubles as to how this post-secondary education institution got to where it is today in the Laurentian CCAA insolvency process and advises the Court that:

Laurentian and the Monitor have been working diligently on settling the Compensation Claims Methodology, nonetheless, as a result of a variety of competing and urgent demands put on the University’s limited resources, (which presumably includes the demands of day to day operations) development has actually been slower than expected.
Although the information-gathering phase took longer than anticipated, drafts of the Compensation Claims Methodology have been prepared and also shown to LUFA and LUSU.
Regardless of best efforts, Laurentian was not able to finalize the Compensation Claims process in order to have everything in time for the Compensation Claims Methodology to be provided for Court authorization by July 30, 2021, based on the A&R Claims Process Order.
Therefore, the University looks for a short extension to that date. This requires a change to paragraph 46 of the A&R Claims Process Order to prolong the day whereby Laurentian can bring a motion to the Court to seek the authorization for the Compensation Claims Methodology to no later than August 20, 2021.

The Haché Affidavit is light on details as to what the issues getting in the way are, what has been agreed to so far and where is Laurentian University in all this? Close or still far off? It provides no real useful information to determine where is Laurentian University on this issue. My review of documents that were made public sheds no more light than what I am telling you in this Brandon Blog. They are obviously hoping that this request will not meet with any opposition so that it will allow for a positive impact on the financial restructuring.

So, unfortunately, there is no real insight into what is holding up the Compensation Claims process for claims of current and former faculty and staff, including severance payments, which certainly will be in the millions of dollars.

I doubt that anyone will wish to try to upset the restructuring over this issue. As of the time of writing this Brandon Blog, there is not a current Monitor’s Report in support of this motion yet made public.

Where is Laurentian University in all of this? I suspect that Laurentian will receive the extension it is requesting.

Where is Laurentian University summary

I hope that you found this where is Laurentian University Brandon Blog interesting. Problems will arise when you are cash-starved and in debt. There are several insolvency processes available to a person or company with too much debt.

If you are concerned because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges, you need debt help and you assume bankruptcy is your only option, call me.

It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

The Ira Smith Team utilizes new modern-day ways to get you out of your debt difficulties with debt relief options as alternatives to bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve. Our professional advice will create for you a personalized debt-free plan for you or your company during our no-cost initial consultation.

The tension put upon you is big. We know your discomfort factors. We will check out your entire situation and design a new approach that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. We will take the weight off of your shoulders and blow away the dark cloud hanging over you. We will design a debt settlement strategy for you. We know that we can help you now.

We understand that people with credit cards maxed out and businesses facing financial issues need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” method with the Ira Smith Team. Not everyone has to file bankruptcy in Canada. The majority of our clients never do as we know the alternatives to bankruptcy. We help many people and companies stay clear of filing an assignment in bankruptcy.

That is why we can establish a new restructuring procedure for paying down debt that will be built just for you. It will be as one-of-a-kind as the economic issues and discomfort you are encountering. If any one of these seems familiar to you and you are serious about getting the solution you need to become debt-free, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Tags 'An ugly stain for years to come': Laurentian University students, A&R Claims Process Order, application for creditor protection, CCAA, CCAA Claims Process, Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, compensation claims, Compensation Claims Methodology, Court of Appeal for Ontario, creditor protection, Cushman Wakefield Toronto, Dr. Robert Haché, financial difficulties, financial issues, financial strain, Huntington University, independent third-party review, independent universities, insolvency, it couldn't afford to pay staff, Laurentian, Laurentian CCAA insolvency, Laurentian University, Laurentian University creditor protection, Laurentian University Faculty Association, laurentian university of sudbury, Laurentian University situation so dire, Laurentian University Staff Union, LUFA, LUSA, post-secondary institution, staff reeling from cuts, Sudbury school plans a real estate review in Phase 2 of its court-guided restructuring process, Thorneloe University, University of Sudbury, University President, where is Laurentian University

Brandon Blog Post

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY OF SUDBURY: LAURENTIAN SCORES HUGE WIN OVER THORNELOE UNIVERSITY

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date June 28, 2021

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

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

***Laurentian University of Sudbury:* *This will forever be a stain on Laurentian University***

The Laurentian University of Sudbury is a public-funded, northern Ontario multilingual and tricultural independent university, serving both Canadian and global students for both undergraduate programs & graduate programs.

However, Laurentian University of Sudbury has its financial problems. It was in need of a restructuring plan. On February 1, 2021, it applied to the Court and obtained protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (” CCAA”), to permit it to restructure, financially as well as operationally, in order to emerge as a sustainable university for the advantage of all stakeholders.

When it sought CCAA protection, Laurentian University of Sudbury, with the assistance of the Monitor, identified a number of issues in which an economic restructuring was required. These consisted of a downsizing of the variety of programs being taught, as well as new, sustainable collective bargaining agreements with the labour unions representing Laurentian professors and other staff.

To date I have written 4 blogs on the Laurentian University of Sudbury CCAA proceedings:

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY FACING INSOLVENCY MAKES STARTLING CCAA NEWS FILING FOR CREDITOR PROTECTION – February 8, 2021
LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY INSOLVENCY RESTRUCTURING – OUR UPDATED GUIDE ON ITS MASSIVE CUTS TO GAIN FINANCIAL HEALTH – May 5, 2021
LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY IN SUDBURY: THE LAURENTIAN FEDERATED UNIVERSITIES SUFFERED A CRUSHING DEFEAT – My 17, 2021
COMPANIES’ CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT: CREDITORS ARE NOW ABLE TO MAKE BOLD CLAIMS AGAINST LAURENTIAN – June 14, 2021

In this Brandon Blog, I discuss the recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released on June 23, 2021, concerning the request of Thorneloe University to appeal a decision of the CCAA judge.

***Laurentian University of Sudbury* and the *Federated Universities***

The Laurentian University of Sudbury additionally recognized, at the beginning of its CCAA proceeding, that it would be essential in dealing with its financial insolvency, to have a fundamental readjustment or realignment of its setups with the 3 Federated Schools: Thorneloe University (sometimes referred to as “Thorneloe“), Huntington University (“Huntington”) and also University of Sudbury (“USudbury”) (collectively referred to as the “Laurentian Federation”).

A court-ordered mediation facilitated the Laurentian University of Sudbury reaching agreements with the unions on the collective bargaining agreements. Nevertheless, the Laurentian University of Sudbury was not successful in reaching what is considered to be the needed readjustments with the Federated Universities on the 60-year-old federation agreement.

On April 1, 2021, Laurentian sent out notices of disclaimer to the Federated Universities. The Monitor concurred with the notifications under the CCAA insolvency process. Thorneloe University College brought an action opposing Laurentian University’s disclaimer notification. (USudbury brought a comparable motion, which was heard by a different judge). Huntington University did not bring such action as they reached an accommodation with the Laurentian University of Sudbury.

The CCAA judge dismissed Thorneloe’s action. Thorneloe University College sought leave of the Court of Appeal for Ontario to appeal the Judge’s decision. At the heart of its opposition is its opinion that permitting the disclaimer will certainly result in Thorneloe’s insolvency and also yet supply only de minimis monetary benefit to Laurentian. Thorneloe further submitted that the real intention for the disclaimer is the elimination of competitors, which is inconsistent with the responsibility to act in good faith.

Thorneloe likewise looked to present new evidence in connection with the Laurentian Federation, consisting of testimony from Thorneloe’s President. There was no resistance from the parties to the introduction of new evidence. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the new evidence.

The Thorneloe appeal

Thorneloe applied for an order that the Laurentian Federation Arrangement, and also the Financial Distribution Notice between Laurentian and Thorneloe, not be disclaimed. The Court of Appeal noted that the CCAA judge noted that the provision of the CCAA under which the Laurentian University of Sudbury issued its disclaimer notices calls for a harmonizing of interests.

The CCAA judge said there are competing interests that must be balanced in determining if the disclaimers should be allowed. After taking part in that analysis, he concluded that the much better choice, or, to say it another way, the least unfavourable selection, was to uphold the notices of disclaimer.

In addressing whether leave should be provided, the Court of Appeal for Ontario will think about 4 aspects, specifically whether:

the requested appeal is prima facie meritorious or not;
the factors on the suggested appeal are of significance to the insolvency community;
the factors on the proposed appeal are important to the action, being the CCAA restructuring; and also
whether the appeal will unduly impede the progression of the restructuring.
laurentian university of sudbury

Laurentian University of Sudbury: The prima facie test

Thorneloe puts five questions to the court for answers in their submission that leave ought to be given:

Can the CCAA, a law whose objective is to stop bankruptcies, be made use of by a debtor to remove competitors as well as create the bankruptcy of a currently solvent entity (in this case, one more university)?
Must s.32 of the CCAA be interpreted so generally that it enables the disclaimer of an arrangement that will certainly lead to the bankruptcy of the counter-party, for removing competition, and where the potential financial gain to the debtor is both unsure and also of no consequence?
What inferences need to be made by the CCAA Court where a DIP loan lender demands the disclaimer of a contract that will certainly cause the bankruptcy of the counter-party or else it will refuse to advance further funds, yet the DIP lending institution refuses to explain why it demands the disclaimer?
What is the duty of the CCAA Court when faced with a requirement for the disclaimer of a contract which the debtor admits is motivated to eliminate competitors, and after that threatens that if the CCAA Court does not support the disclaimer, the debtor may not be able to restructure?
What are the aspects appropriate for persons to act in good faith under s.18.6 of the CCAA, and also specifically where the Laurentian University of Sudbury and/or the DIP lender looks to close down Thorneloe for the confessed objective of eliminating Thorneloe as a competitor?

The Court of Appeal for Ontario was not satisfied that the suggested appeal, challenging the CCAA judge’s discretionary decision to accept the disclaimer and to decline to erase the related term in the DIP Amendment Agreement, is prima facie meritorious. Within that verdict, the appellate court was cognizant that valid findings of fact are owed considerable deference as are discretionary decisions, as long as there is not an extricable error in interpreting the law. So the Court of Appeal of Ontario stated that Thorneloe did not meet the leave test.

Laurentian University of Sudbury: Significance to the practice

In a very tersely worded statement, the Court of Appeal for Ontario said that they do not feel that the proposed appeal is significant to the insolvency community as the concerns raised turn on the application of the legislation to this particular case only.

Laurentian University of Sudbury: Significance to the action

The Court of Appeal for Ontario stated the suggested appeal does have significance. However, the court said that the significance still does not justify leave be provided.

***Laurentian University of Sudbury: Appeal would hinder progress of the action***

The appeal court said there is a danger that an appeal would be a distraction from the
real-time restructuring initiatives and also would unduly hinder the progress of the CCAA case.

So the Court of Appeal for Ontario has decided that Thorneloe should not be given the right to appeal the notice of disclaimer as decided by the CCAA judge. This seems to end this part of the CCAA restructuring. If Thorneloe’s submissions to the courts about its own solvency are correct, we should soon see the bankruptcy of Thorneloe University.

Laurentian University of Sudbury summary

I hope that you found this Laurentian University of Sudbury Brandon Blog interesting. Among the countless problems that can arise when a significant customer stops doing business with you, your business cash flow takes a massive hit.

If you are concerned because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges, whether you need gambling debt help or just plain old debt help and you assume bankruptcy is your only option, call me.

It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

We understand that people and businesses facing financial issues need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” method with the Ira Smith Team. Not everyone has to file bankruptcy in Canada. The majority of our clients never do as we know the alternatives to bankruptcy. We help many people and companies stay clear of filing an assignment in bankruptcy.

Call us now for a no-cost bankruptcy consultation.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Tags 60-year-old federation agreement, CCAA, CCAA judge, Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Federated Universities, financial insolvency, Huntington University, independent university, Judges reject appeals from federated universities, Laurentian Federation, laurentian university of sudbury, this will forever be a stain on laurentian university, Thorneloe, Thorneloe University, Thorneloe's insolvency, University of Sudbury

Brandon Blog Post

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: IS STATUTE BARRED DEBT A BASIC PROPER BANKRUPTCY CLAIM IN ONTARIO?

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date March 15, 2021

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this coronavirus pandemic.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

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

***Know Your Limitations: The Basic Limitation Period in Ontario***

The basic limitation period in Ontario is 2 years from the date knowledge of the claim arises. The phrase “statute of limitations” is used to describe this time period. This is the time period between when you discover you have a claim and when you are legally permitted to bring that claim forward in a court of law. If you do not file your lawsuit within the 2-year limitation period, your right to sue will be extinguished and your claim will be forever lost. This is known as your claim being statute barred.

Statute of limitations: ***Limitations Act, 2002*, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B**

Each province has its very own rules, but the policies are comparable throughout the nation. In Ontario, the period is set by the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B (Act). The Act sets out a time limit as to when legal proceedings might be commenced by suing. It defines the time in which an aggrieved person can start a claim developing from any type of injury, loss, or damage that happened as a result of an act or an omission.

The Act sets out the two-year limitation period as follows:

“Basic limitation period

4 Unless this Act provides otherwise, a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was discovered. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 4″

This is where the 2-year statute barred period of time is set in Ontario limitations law.

Can Your Debt Be Eliminated by the Statute of Limitations in Ontario?

Most people don’t realize that their debts can expire, just like the milk at the back of your fridge. In fact, while you can’t get rid of your debt by throwing it in the garbage, it can be eliminated by the basic statute of limitations under the Act. Debt is not considered timeless in Ontario.

There are two other main concepts under the Act also, which are not part of the discussion in this statute of limitations Brandon Blog. The two other main concepts are:

Ultimate limitation period (Section 15 of the Act).
The different proceedings in respect of for which limitation periods do not apply and therefore there are no time periods or time limits to worry about (Section 16 of the Act).

To keep it simple, when it comes to unsecured debt, the proceeding in respect of trying to recover on a debt by initiating legal action, and the focus of this blog, the applicable limitation period is the 2 year time statute of limitations period.

Statute of Limitations: How long can a debt collector pursue an old debt in Ontario

Last week I wrote a blog on various experts predicting that as the economy reopens, there will be increased activity by collection agencies and debt collectors. In that blog, I discuss the role of the debt collection agency and that they are all governed by provincial law. I also highlighted that they get their work either by trying to collect on the debts of their clients or they purchase accounts in default for less than the total amount owed and then try to collect as principal. Outstanding credit card debt is fertile ground for debt collectors and the debt collection process.

What do you do when a debt collector is pursuing you for an old debt? If it’s one you know you can’t pay, your first step should be to contact the agency and inform them of your situation. It’s important, to be honest, and precise when you tell them why you can’t pay what you owe.

Debt can be a very scary thing. When you owe money, you can feel like your life is one big bill you need to pay. It’s easy to want to hide from your creditors, but the more you avoid them, the more likely they will be to take drastic measures to collect their money. If you find yourself in such a situation, the best thing you can do is to face the music and get the matter settled. If you are in Ontario and have questions about your debt, or how to get it resolved, you can contact a Licensed Insolvency Trustee.

Statute of limitations: What does Ontario limitations law say about making a claim on debts even if I can’t sue?

In Ontario, there used to be substantial support for the interpretation that the right to be paid is not extinguished by the Act, but only the remedy of starting legal action in respect of the debt was eliminated. Various other provinces in Canada have passed provisions in their legislation that expressly states that upon the expiration of a limitation period, civil liberties are extinguished.

However, Ontario has not. In Ontario, the old way of thinking was that a financial obligation is snuffed out if an action on the financial debt is not brought within two years of its being due. Instead, the financial obligation continues to be owed.

There was even Ontario judicial authority for this position in:

Re Bankruptcy of Kenneth Temple, 2012 ONSC 376 (CanLII) (the Temple case)
Duca v. 2203824 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONSC 3119 (CanLII) (the Duca case)

But that is now in doubt given the recent decision of Master J. E. Mills (as she then was) who is now Justice J.E. Mills (the Registrar in Bankruptcy). Her decision released on March 8, 2021, In re: John Trevor Eyton, 2021 ONSC 1719 (CanLII), may have changed that. I say may, because the Temple and Duca cases were decided by a judge in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Registrar in Bankruptcy sits below the Justices. However, she distinguished the Eyton case before her from the above two judicial decisions.

As you will read below, that decision may very well lead to a great statute of limitations period in respect of defence against any debts that a debt collector is trying to recover on, either by themselves or through legal action, where the debt went into default 2 years or more before.

Statute of limitations: Time limits, collections and bankruptcy

So what is the Eyton bankruptcy decision all about? The issue was a creditor appealing the Trustee’s decision disallowing the creditor’s proof of claim pursuant to s. 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) (Form 77—Notice of Disallowance of Claim). The basis of the disallowance was that the Trustee took the position that the claim was statute barred.

The claim was for an unsecured loan where the last payment made was more than 2 years before the date of bankruptcy. Although there may have been some security agreement entered into, it was not perfected under Ontario law at the time of the bankruptcy. Therefore, there was no valid and enforceable security agreement in place.

The Trustee decided that the creditor, being a reasonable person, would have known about the default on the unsecured loan when the next scheduled payment was missed. That was more than 2 years before the bankruptcy and they did not take any action, including legal action. The Trustee went on to say that if the claim in respect of this unsecured loan could no longer be made, then the debt no longer exists.

Limitations analysis by the Court

It was indisputable by the creditor that the financial obligation owed by the bankrupt person was statute-barred under the Act and was not enforceable by way of legal action. The creditor relied upon the Temple and Duca cases listed above. They said that it stood for the proposition that although there was finality in respect of the fact that the creditor could not sue in court, the liability in respect of this unsecured debt remained.

The Trustee countered with a long background of case law which has held that in order to be a provable claim in bankruptcy, the financial obligation must be recoverable by legal process. If the financial obligation is statute-barred at the date of bankruptcy, the proof of claim is not sustainable. This principle was adopted by the Privy Council in 1943, the Alberta Court of Appeal in 1988 and the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 1996.

The court considered both lines of cases and decided that the cases cited by the Trustee, especially the 1996 Ontario Court of Appeal decision, bound the Registrar in Bankruptcy. She decided that the Temple and Duca cases could be distinguished and did not bind her decision.

Therefore, the creditor’s appeal was dismissed and the Trustee’s decision that if you can’t sue the debt is no longer a valid one was the correct interpretation.

What the Eyton statute of limitations analysis by the Court means for bankruptcy proceedings

There are some crazy results flowing from this Eyton decision which I am sure will result in more court decisions down the road.

First, the Registrar in Bankruptcy’s decision was in line with the Ontario Court of Appeal, but not certain judges’ decisions as decided in the Temple and Duca cases. The Temple and Duca cases were decided in a court lower than the Court of Appeal for Ontario but higher than the court in which the Registrar in Bankruptcy sits. So until a judge adopts her reasoning that the Temple and Duca cases are distinguishable, the first crazy result is that you have the various levels of the Ontario court system misaligned on this issue.

As a result of this decision in Eyton, we now have a second anomaly. In Temple, one of the judge’s findings was that a debt that is statute barred because of the statute of limitations can be used as the basis for qualification to launch a Bankruptcy Application against a debtor.

The Registrar in Bankruptcy noted that the line of cases relied upon by the Trustee in Eyton was not put before Justice Newbould (as he then was) when he heard Temple. Justice Newbould found in Temple that there was no Canadian authority for the suggestion that a statute barred debt could not support an application for a Bankruptcy Order.

The Registrar in Bankruptcy said that declaration was appropriate in the Temple case. As a result of these decisions, the legislation as it presently stands in Ontario is that a debt that is statute barred due to the statute of limitations, can be used in support of a Bankruptcy Application but after that could not constitute a provable claim in that same bankruptcy. This of course makes no sense.

Statute of limitations for unsecured debts and bankruptcy – What next?

My understanding is that the Eyton decision is being appealed. The appeal must be heard by a judge. Whatever the outcome of the appeal is, it will hopefully do away with these anomalies that currently exist.

UPDATE: THE APPEAL DECISION HAS BEEN RELEASED. TO READ OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE APPEAL RESULT, CLICK HERE.

The things to further consider are:

Has the debtor given written confirmation of the existence and enforceability of the debt prior to the expiration of the limitation period and before the date of bankruptcy? If yes, then it is a valid debt and is a provable claim in bankruptcy.
The disclosure of a statute barred financial obligation in the sworn Statement of Affairs by the insolvent debtor does not make up a recognition of the debt or the waiver of any limitation period for Limitations Act purposes.
In respect of claims, the debtor is unsure of and the debtor has not given the written confirmation identified above, then the best treatment would be to include the creditor on the Statement of Affairs but as a contingent creditor. This will give that creditor notice of the bankruptcy and they can decide whether or not to file a proof of claim with backup. If filed, the Trustee will then review the claim and make a determination as to its validity and amount.
statute of limitations

Statute of limitations summary

I hope that you found this statute of limitations Brandon Blog interesting. If you are concerned because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges and you assume bankruptcy is your only option, call me. It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

The Ira Smith Team utilizes new modern-day ways to get you out of your debt difficulties while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve.

The tension put upon you is big. We know your discomfort factors. We will check out your entire situation and design a new approach that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. We will take the weight off of your shoulders and blow away the dark cloud hanging over you. We will design a debt settlement strategy for you. We know that we can help you now.

We understand that people and businesses facing financial issues need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” method with the Ira Smith Team. Not everyone has to file bankruptcy in Canada. The majority of our clients never do. We help many people and companies stay clear of bankruptcy.

That is why we can establish a new restructuring procedure for paying down debt that will be built just for you. It will be as one-of-a-kind as the economic issues and discomfort you are encountering. If any one of these seems familiar to you and you are serious about getting the solution you need, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this coronavirus pandemic.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Brandon Blog Post

COMMERCIAL TENANCIES ACT ONTARIO AND THE BANKRUPT TENANT: THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO HAPPILY LOCking IN A LANDLORD’S CLAIM

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date November 4, 2020

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: Introduction**

On October 28, 2020, the Court of Appeal For Ontario clarified the interplay between the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) when a commercial tenant in Ontario goes bankrupt.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I describe what the appellate court decided in the 7636156 Canada Inc. (Re), 2020 ONCA 681 (CanLII) case. I also discuss what it means for commercial landlords when one of its tenants goes bankrupt and what the relationship is between the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario and the BIA.

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The facts**

The facts were not in dispute. On May 1, 2018, the corporate tenant filed for bankruptcy and the Trustee was appointed. On July 23, 2018, the Trustee disclaimed the lease on the commercial premises.

One of the schedules for the commercial lease required the tenant to lodge a letter of credit (LOC) in the amount of $2.5 million in favour of the landlord. The LOC was to have an initial term of one year, renewed each year on an automated basis until 60 days after the expiry of the lease’s term. It was stipulated that the LOC is to continue to stand as protection for the landlord in case the tenant ended up being bankrupt.

According to the lease, the tenant provided the LOC. It was an irrevocable standby LOC issued by The Bank Of Nova Scotia (BNS) for the $2.5 million amount in favour of the landlord. The LOC had been renewed annually before the date of bankruptcy.

To get the LOC, the tenant put up money collateral in the amount of $2.5 million to BNS which was invested in a BNS GIC. BNS took security against the company and registered a financing statement under the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.10. The security was good and valid as against the Trustee. The Trustee was in agreement that the security was valid.

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The landlord draws against the LOC**

As of the bankruptcy date, there were no arrears of rent owing under the lease. Since the commercial tenant was bankrupt, the landlord made 3 claims on the LOC. These three claims totalled the full $2.5 million LOC value.

The initial draw, in the amount of $207,732.28, was made on May 16, 2018, before the Trustee disclaimed its interest in the commercial lease. Under the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario, the Trustee has the right to occupy the premises for 3 months from the date of bankruptcy, if it wishes. By the end of the 3 months, whether the Trustee occupied or not, it must either disclaim its interest in the lease or adopt it and assign it to a purchaser.

The opportunity to sell the lease would happen if the rented commercial premises are in a sought after location and the lease has value in it. A lease can have value if it is at a rental rate below the market rent at the date of bankruptcy.

The 2nd draw, in the amount of $1,709,768.40, occurred on December 4, 2018. The 3rd claim against the LOC, in the amount of $582,499.32, was made on April 2, 2019.

The LOC draws covered the losses asserted by the landlord as follows:

$207,732.28 being the rent for May 2018;
$1,621,160.72 for rent for the months of August 2018 to April 2019, inclusive;
$368,479 for the unamortized cost for the landlord allowance as included in the lease, inclusive of interest; and
$302,628 for restoring the premises, as allowed for in the lease.

In support of each demand against the LOC, the landlord gave BNS the required certificate verifying the debt of the tenant under the lease. The landlord was the beneficiary under the LOC for the debt of the tenant, for which repayment was demanded from the tenant and not paid.

BNS accepted the landlord’s draw claims under the LOC and paid the complete amount of the LOC to the landlord. BNS never asked the landlord to return the funds paid.

The landlord believed that it was entitled to the funds under the lease drawn up in accordance with the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario. BNS also believed that the landlord fulfilled its requirements to receive payment under the LOC from BNS.

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The landlord’s proof of claim**

The landlord knew how to complete form 31 proof of claim and filed it with the Trustee. The landlord filed for a preferred claim in the amount of $623,196.84. The preferred claim was for 3 months’ accelerated rent: May, June, and July 2018. The landlord’s proof of claim also attached a schedule showing the calculations.

In Ontario, a landlord’s preferred claim for rent in case of a commercial tenant’s bankruptcy is limited: a maximum of 3 months’ pre-bankruptcy arrears as well as for accelerated rent, a 3-month post-bankruptcy claim.

The right to accelerated rent must be stipulated in the lease. Further, the landlord’s entire preferred claim is limited to the value of the bankrupt company’s property on the premises, after the claims of trust claimants or secured creditors.

All these rights are laid out in the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario.

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The Trustee’s disallowance of the landlord’s proof of claim**

The Trustee disallowed the landlord’s proof of claim, stating that the landlord’s preferred claim for three months’ accelerated rent had been paid by the landlord’s draws against the LOC.

The disallowance also stated that:

the funds used to pay the landlord from the LOC originated from funds that came from the bankrupt tenant;
the LOC was to be reduced prior to the date of bankruptcy; and
the landlord did not include proper support for its case for further damages in regard to the tenant’s obligations under the commercial lease.

The Trustee’s position that the LOC should have been reduced in amount is not important for the purpose of this Brandon’s Blog. I won’t spend any time on it other than to tell you that the court did not agree with the Trustee’s position.

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The landlord appeals**

The landlord appealed the disallowance to the Registrar in Bankruptcy. The Registrar permitted the landlord’s appeal partly. She held that considering that the landlord had drawn on the LOC for the May 2018 rent, the Trustee appropriately disallowed the preferred claim for the month of May.

However, she further determined that the landlord was correct in its accelerated rent claim for the other two months. The landlord could look for payment from the bankruptcy estate or from the LOC. According to the Registrar, the Trustee therefore incorrectly refused the preferred claim for those other two months.

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The Trustee’s motion to a judge**

The Trustee wasn’t finished debating about the landlord’s rights to claim against the entire LOC given the Trustee’s disclaimer of the lease, the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario and the BIA. The Trustee made a motion to the court to determine what amount from the LOC the landlord was entitled to. The Trustee’s position was that the landlord was not entitled to the full amount of the LOC. Since the security for the LOC was funding from the company, any excess not required by BNS should be paid to the Trustee.

The parties’ positions that they laid out in their respective materials were largely what was already before the Master. The motion judge concluded that the landlord was only entitled to make use of the LOC for the 3 months’ accelerated rent.

The judge’s reasoning was:

a disclaimer of the lease by a trustee in bankruptcy is the same as a voluntary abandonment of the lease by the occupant under the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario with the consent of the landlord. This snuffs out all obligations of the tenant under the commercial lease;

he turned down the landlord’s submissions that the independent obligation of BNS to it under the LOC meant that the funds coming from the LOC were not the property of the bankrupt and therefore not payable to the Trustee;

that upon the disclaimer of a lease by a Trustee, a bankrupt commercial tenant does not owe any amounts to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord cannot make use of the LOC for any claim other than the 3 months of rent arrears and the 3 months of accelerated rent; and

that the obligation of BNS, under the LOC, to make payment to the landlord beneficiary is limited to the amount owing by the commercial tenant under the lease. As he ruled that from the disclaimer the tenant’s only obligation was for the rent arrears and the accelerated rent, therefore, the landlord could not claim any other amounts against the LOC.

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The landlord appeals to the Court of Appeal For Ontario**

The question before the appellate court that I want to discuss is, did the judge err in holding that, upon the disclaimer of the lease by the Trustee, the landlord was not qualified to make use of the LOC other than for the amount of its preferred claim?

The decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in considering this case and the interplay between the BIA and the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario clarified exactly what it means when a Trustee issues a disclaimer of lease and what the contractual relationship around the LOC means.

The Trustee argued that when it disclaimed the lease, the landlord was thereupon stopped from making use of the LOC for any amount other than the amount of its preferred claim. The Trustee contended that such a concept of insolvency legislation overrides the autonomy principle for a LOC and therefore limits the lawful amount the landlord could draw.

The Court of Appeal For Ontario made certain findings relating to a disclaimer of lease by a Trustee as follows:

The disclaimer under the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario is for the sole benefit of the bankrupt commercial tenant.
While a disclaimer operates to finish the bankrupt tenant’s responsibilities under the lease, the disclaimer cannot be interpreted to be a consensual surrender for all purposes (emphasis added).
A Trustee’s disclaimer of a bankrupt tenant’s lease ends the legal rights of the landlord against the bankrupt tenant’s estate relative to the unexpired term of the lease, aside from the three months’ accelerated rent claim under the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario and the BIA.

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The landlord has a LOC on things**

The appellate court recognized that the ability of the landlord to rely upon the LOC for more than just its preferred claim depends on the wording of the lease. In this case, the lease stated that the LOC functions as safety and security for indemnification of the landlord for losses:

“resulting from any termination, surrender, disclaimer or repudiation of this lease … in connection with any insolvency and bankruptcy or otherwise” and that the Landlord’s rights in respect of the LOC were not affected by the disclaimer of the Lease in any bankruptcy proceeding but would “continue with respect to the periods prior thereto and thereafter as if the Lease had not been surrendered, disclaimed, repudiated or terminated.”

Further, one of the terms of the LOC was that it will not be released, discharged or affected by the bankruptcy of the commercial tenant or the disclaimer of the lease.

The appellate court also went on to state that the motion judge’s decision runs counter to a standard principle relevant to LOCs. That is that providing financial institutions, such as BNS, have an independent responsibility to make a settlement to the beneficiary. The LOC is a contract between BNS and the landlord. It is regulated by the principle of the freedom or autonomy of LOCs, not by the BIA or the Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario.

Under the freedom principle, the issuer needs to pay the beneficiary upon appropriate qualification, subject to the minimal exemption for fraud which was not found in this case.

So with a properly worded lease and a properly worded LOC as security, the landlord can call on the LOC for all claims against the bankrupt commercial tenant after a Trustee disclaims its interest in the lease. With these facts, the landlord was successful in being able to claim everything it was owed, up to the limit of the LOC.

Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario summary

I hope you have enjoyed this Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario Brandon’s Blog. A sick insolvent company’s business can be saved by a debt restructuring.

Do you or your company have too much debt? Are you or your company in need of financial restructuring? The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur or the person who has too much personal debt.

You are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges. It is not your fault that you are in this situation. You have been only shown the old ways that do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team uses new modern ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief freedom.

The stress placed upon you is huge. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. The way we take the load off of your shoulders and devise a debt settlement plan, we know that we can help you.

We know that people facing financial problems need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team.

That is why we can develop a restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain you are facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious in finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.

Call us now for a free consultation.

We will get you or your company back on the road to healthy stress-free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

Tags 7636156 Canada Inc., Bank of Nova Scotia, bankrkuptcy and insolvency act, bankrupt commercial tenant, bankrupt tenant, BIA, bns, commercial tenancies act, commercial tenancies act ontario, Court of Appeal for Ontario, disclaimer of lease, form 31 proof of claim, how to complete form 31 proof of claim, Ira Smith Trustee, letter of credit, personal property security act, registrar in bankruptcy, trustee

Brandon Blog Post

UNDUE INFLUENCE: ENTREPRENEUR’S SPOUSE’S ONTARIO COLLATERAL SECURITY

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date July 22, 2020

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Undue influence introduction

Undue influence refers to a situation in which somebody is pushed into taking an action, usually with respect to their property, rather than under their own uninfluenced decision. The action does not a result of their true wishes or objectives, rather it is those of the influencer.

It is an equitable principle made use of to set aside particular transactions. While initially used on wills, it has also been found in various other transactions such as:

powers of attorney; and
a spouse providing a collateral mortgage on property owned by the spouse to support that spouse’s guarantee of a business loan taken out by the other spouse or a company owned by one or both spouses.

It is especially important to think about the concept of undue influence and its impact if suspected. This is especially true when the person being influenced is a senior when dealing with estates and wills.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I look at a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in reviewing a lower court’s decision involving the presumption of undue influence.

Presumed undue influence

The decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in JGB Collateral v. Rochon, 2020 ONCA 464 (CanLII) was released on July 17, 2020. Mr. Rochon was Chairman and CEO of a publicly-traded Florida corporation (the “Company” or the “Corporation”). He was also a significant shareholder. The Company borrowed from a New York-based lender. As a condition of the loan, Ms. Rochon was required to give her personal guarantee to the lender for this debt, supported by a collateral mortgage over a farm property she owned in Lanark, Ontario. She did so.

The Corporation defaulted on the loan and filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Mrs. Rochon’s guarantee was governed by New York State law, and the New York court decided that her guarantee was valid and enforceable. The lender used that finding to begin an action in Ontario seeking the possession and sale of the Ontario property.

The Ontario lower court decided that the collateral mortgage on the Ontario property was not enforceable due to the fact that:

It was the result of presumed undue influence on Mrs. Rochon by Mr. Rochon.
The lender had notice thereof.
It did not sufficiently ensure that Mrs. Rochon got independent legal advice prior to providing the guarantee and collateral mortgage security.

The lower court’s decision of the presumed undue influence and undue influence

Whenever there is the presumption of undue influence, the evidence is needed to either prove or disprove the allegation of undue influence. As I mentioned earlier, these legal concepts arise many times in the Estates area. It is not unusual for an Estate Trustee to see the will be challenged on the basis that one or more of the beneficiaries used undue influence on the deceased when the most recent will was drafted and signed.

It also arises in commercial transactions, especially between spouses, when one spouse provides a guarantee like Mrs. Rochon did with collateral security.

The Court of Appeal started out by stating that the presumption of undue influence is a rebuttable presumption based on evidence. It emerges if the nature of the connection between the borrower and the guarantor, coupled with the nature of the transaction between them justifies, without any other evidence, an inference that the transaction was the result of the excessive impact of one party over the other. Evidence is then needed to prove or disprove the presumption of undue influence.

The motion judge decided that the crucial points supporting a presumption of undue influence were satisfied:

“[t]his is a classic case of a spouse who unquestioningly complied with any and all requests by her husband to sign documents related to his business”.

He found two attorneys acted for the stakeholders. One of them was the company’s general counsel and also Mr. and Mrs. Rochon’s daughter. He also noted the evidence of an officer of the lender, that he asked for and received confirmation from both lawyers that everything in the guarantee, including the declaration in it that its terms had been clarified to both Mr. and Mrs. Rochon by an independent lawyer.

The lower court judge decided that this was insufficient. The lender did not get a certificate that Mrs. Rochon was provided with independent legal advice. Additionally, there was no indication that Mrs. Rochon got legal advice independently from (as well as by an independent lawyer) to any kind of legal recommendations given to Mr. Rochon.

He commented that Mrs. Rochon’s difficulty to the enforceability of the mortgage would certainly have been counteracted by the easy tool of calling for ample proof, via a Certification of Independent Legal Advice (or comparable), that Mrs. Rochon was fully knowledgeable about the import of the security that she was offering.

Based on these findings, the lower court judge found that Mrs. Rochon’s guarantee and collateral mortgage security was the product of undue influence. Therefore her guarantee was unenforceable and the collateral mortgage was void and unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario undue influence decision

The appellate court’s three-judge panel reviewed the lower court’s decision and found several errors. Based on the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that:

Mrs. Rochon never argued undue influence in the New York State court case so that issue was never examined there.
The motion court considered just the nature of the connection between Mr. and Mrs. Rochon. He fell short to think about the nature of the transaction between them.
While Mr. and Mrs. Rochon swore in their affidavits before the motion court that Mrs. Rochon had no financial interest in the Company, they acknowledge in their factums before the appeal court that Mrs. Rochon had an interest in the Corporation. However, they suggest that it was not significant, and for that reason, the judge’s failure to clearly consider it is of no importance.
The materials before the motion court included a Schedule 13D filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, signed by Mr. Rochon. It was also submitted with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It shows that Mrs. Rochon was a limited partner holding a 20% interest in a limited partnership holding around 35% of the common shares of the Corporation. The filing also said that she had the indirect right, through the limited partnership, to obtain dividends from, or profits from the sale of, any common shares of the Company owned by the limited partnership.
Therefore, Mrs. Rochon had a significant interest in the Company.
The Company was in numerous aspects that of a family business. The Rochon’s son and daughter were employed by the Corporation. Therefore, aside from her significant economic interest in the Corporation, Mrs. Rochon had a desire to do what she could to sustain it. As she confessed on cross-examination, signing documents when asked by her other half, such as those with this financing, was in both her and her other half’s best interests. From a business perspective, there was an advantage to Mrs. Rochon.
Even if a presumption of undue influence did occur such that the lender was put on notice to make certain Mrs. Rochon was participating in the transaction of her own free will, the lender did so. The lower court judge improperly elevated the test of what a lending institution must do to secure itself from an assertion of presumed undue influence.

Particularly, take practical steps to attempt to ensure that the guarantor understands the deal and is becoming part of it freely, and understands the ramifications of becoming a guarantor, by recommending that the guarantor look for and get independent legal advice.

The lower court improperly boosted the onus on the lender to a demand that a loan provider obtains a written Certification from a lawyer that the attorney has provided independent legal advice to the guarantor. The Court of Appeal For Ontario found that the inquiries made by the lender of the attorneys sufficed to shield it from Mrs. Rochon’s assertion of presumed undue influence.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the lower court decision and gave the lender judgment to seize and sell the Ontario property.

Undue influence summary

This is a very important case for entrepreneurs in Ontario. Entrepreneurs are by definition risk-takers. It is not unusual for them to not have any family assets in their name, either jointly or on their own. Rather, family assets can be shielded by having ownership by a spouse, other family members or a family trust. That way, if the company established by the entrepreneur runs into business problems, the family home or other assets are not at risk.

For this reason, it is common for a bank to ask not only for the entrepreneur’s guarantee for a bank loan to the company, but also the guarantee of his or her spouse. The bank also can and many times does ask for collateral security to stand in support of the spouse’s guarantee. So, it is important to understand when there may be a presumption of undue influence in getting the guarantee and collateral security and what tests the court will use if it is raised as a defence on the guarantee.

I hope you have found this undue influence Brandon’s Blog interesting and helpful. The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Income, revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs, their companies and individual Canadians. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance for debt relief Canada COVID-19, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Tags beneficiaries, certificate of independent legal advice, collateral mortgage, collateral mortgage security, Court of Appeal for Ontario, covid-19, debt relief, estate trustee, guarantee, independent legal advice, Ira Smith Trustee, JGB Collateral v. Rochon, lender, lending institution, powers of attorney, presumption of undue influence, undue influence, wills

Insolvency Trustee Court Order: Introduction

The Superior Court’s Insolvency Trustee Court Order Appointing the Receiver

The Problem: Misused Investor Money

What Standard of Proof Was Needed?

Reading the Partnership Agreements

Why Include All Properties Under One Receiver?

Insolvency Trustee Court Order: The Court of Appeal Upholds Investor Protection

The Main Argument on Appeal

The Court of Appeal’s Strong Response

The Final Decision

The Foundational Role of a Licensed Insolvency Trustee in Canada

Who Is a Licensed Insolvency Trustee?

The Law That Guides Everything We Do

Federal Oversight: The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy

Our Core Responsibilities

Understanding the Necessity of an Insolvency Trustee Court Order in Insolvency Proceedings

What Is an Insolvency Trustee Court Order?

Why Court Involvement Is Essential

What Requires Court Approval?

Key Scenarios Requiring a Licensed Insolvency Trustee to Obtain an Insolvency Trustee Court Order

Approval of Trustee Fees and Administrative Costs

Authorizing Unusual or Complex Transactions and Asset Sales

Resolving Disputes Among Stakeholders

Approving Debtor Proposals and Restructuring Plans

Modifying, Annulling, or Terminating Insolvency Proceedings

Addressing Trustee Liability or Allegations of Misconduct

The Far-Reaching Significance of Judicial Oversight in Insolvency

Protecting the Interests of All Parties

Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, and Due Process

Upholding Public Confidence in the Canadian Insolvency System

The Ultimate Framework for All Decisions

Consequences of Acting Without a Necessary Insolvency Trustee Court Order

Potential Ramifications for the Licensed Insolvency Trustee

Adverse Impacts on the Insolvency Estate and Stakeholders

Frequently Asked Questions: Insolvency Trustee Court Order

What is a Licensed Insolvency Trustee?

What does a Licensed Insolvency Trustee actually do?

What law governs Licensed Insolvency Trustees in Canada?

Who oversees Licensed Insolvency Trustees?

What is an insolvency trustee court order?

Why do courts get involved in insolvency proceedings?

When does a Licensed Insolvency Trustee need a court order?

What happens if a trustee acts without getting a required court order?

What standard of proof is needed to appoint a receiver in regulatory cases?

Why does this matter?

Why did the Cacoeli court order cover all properties, even those with secured creditors?

Insolvency Trustee Court Order Final Thoughts: The Licensed Insolvency Trustee’s Role in a Regulatory Receivership

Need Help With Debt or Insolvency Issues?

Fraudulent Conveyances Act: Introduction

How the Fraudulent Conveyances Act works

Definition of fraudulent conveyance

Who is covered by the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and what actions are prohibited under the Act?

Importance of understanding limitation periods in business transactions

Time Period for fraudulent conveyance actions: Limitations Act vs Real Property Limitations Act

A real-world example of a legal proceeding related to fraudulent conveyance actions: Bank of Montreal v. Iskenderov, 2023 ONCA 528 (CanLII)

Legal proceedings related to fraudulent conveyance actions: The key points in this case

The original legal proceeding related to the fraudulent conveyance action

Considerations when evaluating liability and the applicable limitation period: The Court of Appeal for Ontario analysis

Fraudulent Conveyances Act: Conclusion

Family law introduction

Family law: Background of the case

Family law: The lower court decision

Family law: The OCA ruling

Family law: Implications of the ruling

Family law conclusion

Declaring bankruptcy: Business insolvency

Declaring bankruptcy: An overview of corporate bankruptcy

Declaring bankruptcy: Types of Corporate Bankruptcy

Declaring bankruptcy: Does corporate bankruptcy affect personal assets?

Declaring bankruptcy: The Medcap case

Declaring bankruptcy: Appealing a bankruptcy order

Declaring bankruptcy: Unable to pay its debts

Declaring bankruptcy: Bankruptcy application for improper motives

Declaring bankruptcy: There is no purpose for this bankruptcy

Declaring bankruptcy: The final word

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Family situations

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Bankruptcy, winnings, gifts, inheritance property and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

Inheritance during bankruptcy: What happens if I receive property, assets or an inheritance while I am bankrupt?

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Will I lose my Inheritance in a bankruptcy?

Inheritance during bankruptcy: RBC and section 38 of the BIA

***Where is Laurentian University? Ask current President* *Dr. Robert Haché***

***Laurentian University of Sudbury:* *This will forever be a stain on Laurentian University***

***Laurentian University of Sudbury* and the *Federated Universities***

***Laurentian University of Sudbury: Appeal would hinder progress of the action***

***Know Your Limitations: The Basic Limitation Period in Ontario***

Statute of limitations: ***Limitations Act, 2002*, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B**

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: Introduction**

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The facts**

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The landlord draws against the LOC**

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The landlord’s proof of claim**

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The Trustee’s disallowance of the landlord’s proof of claim**

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The landlord appeals**

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The Trustee’s motion to a judge**

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The landlord appeals to the Court of Appeal For Ontario**

***Commercial Tenancies Act Ontario*: The landlord has a LOC on things**