Tag: good faith

HOW BANKRUPTCIES WORK IN CANADA: 5 NEW CANADIAN INSOLVENCY LAW AMENDMENTS

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date November 11, 2019

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this how bankruptcies work in Canada Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the podcast

Canadian bankruptcies laws

Last week I wrote about amendments to Canadian insolvency law for intellectual property rights in my Brandon’s Blog INSOLVENCY LAW CANADA AMENDMENTS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS In addition to the intellectual property rights amendments, other amendments affecting how bankruptcies work in Canada. They were enacted as of November 1, 2019. They too were part of the changes announced in the Canadian 2019 Budget.

Corporate bankruptcies Canada

Most of the amendments affect not just corporate bankruptcies. Receiverships and corporate financial restructuring are likewise affected. Even the operation of solvent companies is also affected. The amendments were made to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA), Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36) (CCAA) and the Canada Business Corporations Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44). I will focus on the changes to the BIA and CCAA.

The BIA and the CCAA modifications in the Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, are planned to boost retired life protection by making the insolvency treatment fairer and much more clear. In the legislation, the amendments fall under the heading “Enhancing Retirement Security”.

This issue remained in the news over the past two years. High profile insolvency situations such as Sears Canada and U.S. Steel Canada brought this matter to the forefront. I wrote a few blogs on the topic of proposals to change the BIA and CCAA. The proposals were meant to supply protection to senior citizens. This consisted of private members’ bills introduced by Hamilton Mountain NDP MP Scott Duvall, Bloc Québécois MP Marilène Gill and Senator Art Eggleton, P. C.

None of their Bills ever came close to being enacted. Rather, the Liberal government made some changes. Only time will tell if the changes I describe below will accomplish the stated goal of enhancing retirement security.

Insolvency and bankruptcy code amendments – BIA

The BIA amendments will apply to bankruptcy, receivership and BIA financial restructurings done under the Proposal section of the BIA. The amendments are aimed at several areas. All the insolvency amendments are for insolvency proceedings beginning on or after November 1, 2019.

1. Good faith

Section 4.2 of the BIA is amended by adding a good faith provision section(4.2)(1). The new language states that any interested person in any type of process under the BIA must act in good faith relative to those proceedings. New subsection 4.‍2(2) codifies a power for the Court. It now states that if the court is satisfied that an interested individual fails to act in good faith, on application by any other interested party, the Court might make any kind of order that it thinks is proper in the circumstances.

I would have hoped that acting in good faith was always a given. Previously, the Court had wide discretion in insolvency proceedings to make an order that it believed to be just and appropriate. I am not sure this new language adds much to “enhancing retirement security”, but at least now it is codified.

2. Registered disability savings plan

Before Budget Canada 2019, there was a gap when it came to a registered disability savings plan (RDSP). The gap was that unlike an RRSP or RRIF, there was no exemption for an RDSP in how bankruptcies work in Canada.

Now Paragraph 67(1)‍(b.‍3) of the BIA is amended to include the same exemption for an RDSP that an RRSP and RRIF enjoy. That is, the amounts in any of these funds are now exempt from seizure in a bankruptcy apart from property added to any such plan or fund in the twelve-month period before the date of bankruptcy.

3. Director liability – Inquiry into dividends, redemption of shares or compensation

Section 101(1) of the BIA has been amended. It now deals with certain transactions that 1 year before the corporation went bankrupt. The time period is within the day that is one year prior to the date of the initial bankruptcy event and ending on the date of the bankruptcy both such dates included. If the corporation had:

paid a dividend, aside from a stock dividend;
redeemed or acquired for cancellation any one of its shares of the company’s capital stock; or
has paid termination pay, severance pay or incentive or other benefits to a director, officer or any person that manages or controls the business

the Court may, on the application of the licensed insolvency trustee (Trustee), inquire into the transaction to find out whether it took place at a time when the firm was insolvent or whether it made the firm bankrupt.

If a transaction referred to above has actually occurred, the Court can give judgment to the Trustee against the directors of the firm, jointly as well as severally, or individually as appropriate in the circumstances.

The amount of the pay or benefits, with interest on the amount, that has not been paid back to the company if the Court discovers that the payment of the pay or benefit:

occurred at a time when the company was insolvent or it made the corporation bankrupt;
was notably over the reasonable market price of the consideration gotten by the company;
was made outside the common course of business

and the directors did not have reasonable grounds to think that the payment:

took place when the firm was not insolvent or would not render the firm insolvent;
was not conspicuously over the fair market value of the consider obtained by the corporation; and
was made in the ordinary course of business.

Interestingly, the new statute also states that a judgment will not be made against or be binding on a director who had protested against the payment of the pay or benefits and had, therefore, vindicated himself or herself under the relevant corporate legislation from any kind of resulting obligation.

No doubt we will only learn how effective this additional liability of directors provision will be after several court cases. Presumably, this amendment to the statute will provide extra food for thought for the insurance companies providing director and officer liability coverage.

Insolvency proceedings under the CCAA

The CCAA covers larger company financial restructuring. In addition to amendments to the CCAA to mirror the BIA amendments discussed above, there were also a couple of other changes made.

4. Initial application

Prior to November 1 CCAA filings, the company was given an initial stay of proceedings for 30 days. Now, for filings November 1, 2019, and after, this initial stay period has been reduced to 10 days.

5. Relief reasonably necessary

An initial order made or during the 10-day initial application stay period will be limited to alleviation that is fairly required for the continued operations of the borrower business in the regular course, but no extra relief will be granted. This narrowing of relief during the initial order period means that the Company cannot ask for all sorts of extra relief outside of the normal course of business.

In order to attempt to get extra relief, the Company will have to make a motion to the Court on notice to any affected parties. The Company will not be able to pack it into an initial order and force affected parties who did not receive notice to have to come to Court under the comeback clause. This was the case before November 1, 2019.

Most times in a CCAA restructuring, it is necessary for the Company’s survival to get debtor-in-possession financing. When such financing is available, it usually comes with very onerous terms. To avoid essentially keeping all of the Company’s assets out of reach by using such financing, the CCAA has been amended. It says that when applying for the initial order or during the initial stay period, no order shall be made unless the court is pleased that the terms of the loan are restricted to what is reasonably necessary for the continued operations of the debtor firm in the ordinary course of business during that initial stay period duration.

In this way, Parliament has tried to put the brakes on wide-sweeping initial orders that have everything including the kitchen sink in them. Parliament wants to have the initial orders contain only what is reasonably necessary to keep the Company’s operations going until everyone is back in Court all lawyered up.

It will be very interesting to see what Court decisions come from all of these new amendments to the Canadian insolvency laws.

Summary

I hope you enjoyed this how bankruptcies work in Canada Brandon’s Blog on the other BIA and CCAA insolvency amendments effective November 1, 2019. 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 corporate restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur. You are worried because your company is facing significant financial challenges. Your business provides income not only for your family. Many other families rely on you and your company for their well-being.

The stress placed upon you due to your company’s financial challenges is enormous. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your company’s problems; financial and emotional. The way we deal with this problem and devise a corporate restructuring plan, we know that we can help you and your company too.

We know that companies 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 company restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain it is 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 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 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, BIA, canadian bankruptcies laws, canadian insolvency law amendments, CCAA, Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, corporate restructuring, director liability, good faith, how bankruptcies work in canada, initial appliction, initial order, Insolvency and bankruptcy code amendments, Ira Smith Trustee, rdsp, registered disability savings plan, stay of proceedings

Brandon Blog Post

STUDENT LOAN BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE CANADA: REGISTRAR STRONG DECISION REVERSED

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date October 30, 2019

Introduction

Last month, I wrote about the decision in the decision of the Registrar in Bankruptcy sitting in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Edmonton. The case, Morrison (Re), 2019 ABQB 521, dealt with the issue of student loan bankruptcy discharge Canada.

What happens to student loans if you declare bankruptcy?

This was an application according to s. 178( 1.1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA). As a whole, student loans cannot be released by a bankruptcy discharge where the date of bankruptcy took place within seven years after the day on which the bankrupt ceased to be a full time or part-time student.

However, Section 178( 1.1) of the BIA, permits after 5 years after the day on which the bankrupt, with student loan debt ceases to be a part-time or full-time student, the Court may, on an application, order that such financial debt will be released. For such Canada student loan forgiveness, the Court needs to be assured that:

the bankrupt person has really acted in good faith about their commitments under their student debt loan agreement
the bankrupt will remain to experience financial difficulty to such an extent that the bankrupt will be unable to pay that financial debt

The appeal of the Registrar’s decision

I won’t go into all of the details leading up to Ms. Morrison’s bankruptcy. If you want to read about it, check out my September 4, 2019, Brandon’s Blog, CANADA STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS: BANKRUPTCY TREATS STUDENT LOANS FAIRLY.

The Registrar discovered that the timing of when Ms. Morrison filed for bankruptcy compared to the seven-year cut-off was very close. The bankrupt’s key interest and her intent at the time of meeting with the Trustee were to get a discharge from all of her creditors on equal ground. The Registrar decided that Ms. Morrison did not seek bankruptcy to avoid only her student loan debt but rather to deal with every one of her debt problems.

There was obviously miscommunication between Ms. Morrison and her Trustee. The problem was that the miscommunication aggravated her specified objective.

The federal government did not oppose the discharge. The Registrar decided that her student loan debt should be discharged. He made a conditional order of discharge taking everything, including her surplus income, into consideration.

Both Canada Student Loans (CSL), as well as Ontario Student Loans (OSL), appealed the Registrar’s decision to a Judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. The reason OSL was involved was that her education was in Ontario. She later moved to Alberta to pursue work opportunities.

The Commercial Court’s review of a Registrar’s decision

The Judge first considered what is the proper criteria he needs to use. He determined that when it comes to the Commercial Court’s review of a Registrar’s decision, the Judge stated that the criteria that need to be followed are:

findings of fact are deserving of deference unless there is an overriding and palpable error;
questions of the law and matters of principle are reviewed on the standard of accuracy and correctness;
concerns of mixed fact and law exist along within a range in between the above 2 requirements;
a mistake in characterizing or thinking about the correct legal examination to be used attracts accuracy; and
in order to disrupt a discretionary determination, the reviewing Court needs to discover that the Registrar erred in principle or in law or failed to think about an appropriate aspect or took into consideration an inappropriate factor, resulting in a wrong conclusion, thus allowing the assessing Court to use its discretion to replace the Registrar’s findings.

The Judge’s review of the Registrar’s decision

The provision of the BIA that Ms. Morrison applied under is Section 178(1.1) of the BIA. That section states:

“Court may order non-application of subsection (1):

(1.1) At any time after five years after the day on which a bankrupt who has a debt referred to in paragraph (1)(g) or (g.1) ceases to be a full- or part-time student or an eligible apprentice, as the case may be, under the applicable Act or enactment, the court may, on application, order that subsection (1) does not apply to the debt if the court is satisfied that

(a) the bankrupt has acted in good faith in connection with the bankrupt’s liabilities under the debt; and

(b) the bankrupt has and will continue to experience financial difficulty to such an extent that the bankrupt will be unable to pay the debt.”

The Judge stated that as the legislation indicates, the determination of whether either of the called for parts of “good faith” and “financial difficulty” is established is contextual and fact-specific. It is based upon considering all aspects of the particular situation. Also if pleased that the requisite elements are present, the Court still maintains a discretion to decline the granting of such relief.

Can you put student loan on bankruptcy – Good faith

The Registrar’s finding was that Ms. Morrison’s actions evidenced an underlying behaviour of good faith but that objective was overborne by life getting in her way. The Judge accepted the part that life got in her way might be real in regard to the very early post-student years of 2008-2014. However, he decided that starting in 2014 she began to make a relatively decent living, yet made no effort to start to repay her student loan debt.

The Judge analyzed Ms. Morrison’s behaviour once she started earning a better income in 2014 and her statements concerning why she filed for bankruptcy. He also remarked that it was plain from her rancour and annoyance directed at her Trustee because her strategy to have bankruptcy free her from her student loan debt failed. She felt the Trustee did not advise her properly on the timing of the bankruptcy as related to when she ceased to be a full-time or part-time student. She was upset that she had this student loan bankruptcy discharge Canada issue.

The Judge then reviewed what are the things he must consider in trying to determine good faith. He stated that the relevant cases suggest, good faith that has to be shown in order for the application to succeed connects to the loan, not the bankrupt’s general behaviour throughout the bankruptcy. He said the things he must consider are as follows:

whether the student loan financing was used for the desired purpose;
did the person complete the financed education;
has the education obtained provide financial gain to the bankrupt;
were reasonable attempts made to clear up the student financial debts;
has the person actually used available alternatives, such as interest relief or loan remission;
the timing of the bankruptcy;
do the student loan debt comprise a considerable component of the total debt;
did the applicant get enough work and earnings to be reasonably expected to make payments on the loan;
the way of life of the applicant;
whether the applicant had adequate income for there to be surplus income under the Superintendent of Bankruptcy’s directive;
what offers the bankrupt might have made to the lending administrators and their reactions; as well as
whether the bankrupt was hampered at any time with health problems which would have either reduced the amount the person could work or entirely eliminate the possibility of working.

In weighing all these factors, the Judge was of the view that what counted against Ms. Morrison was her absence of initiative in attempting to repay the debt on some basis. The Judge also found that, notwithstanding that Ms. Morrison has struggled both personally and financially, and had a run of rotten luck, this could not excuse her from failing to make any attempt to repay the student loans.

Therefore, the Judge disagreed with the Registrar. He found that she did not meet the test of acting in good faith.

How can I get my student loans forgiven in Canada – financial difficulty

Both CSL and also OSL contended that financial difficulty, unlike the Registrar’s conclusion, has not been proven as Ms. Morrison’s own evidence shows she has the ability to make some repayment towards the debt. CSL likewise suggested that the Registrar decreased the statutory limit for financial difficulty by finding that the evidence need only show that settlement will provide a hardship to her rather than revealing the bankrupt will be unable to pay the debt.

Section 178(1.1)(b) of the BIA states regarding financial difficulty:

“the bankrupt has and will continue to experience financial difficulty to such an extent that the bankrupt will be unable to pay the debt.”

The Judge took this section to indicate that, for the present as well as in the foreseeable future, the bankrupt’s financial position will not allow them to genuinely both pay their debts and subsist in an affordable method.

Therefore, in His Honour’s view, the idea of a settlement of student debt may well entail some challenges or hardship. It is just when the difficulty would deny an individual a level of practical subsistence that the “financial difficulty” aspect of this section comes into play.

Student loan debt Canada forgiveness – The decision on appeal

The Judge agreed with CSL that the Registrar had lowered the bar on the determination of financial difficulty from what is intended in the BIA. He also found that Ms. Morrison has some capacity to make some contribution towards retiring the student loan debts concerned. The evidence also showed that CSL and OSL were open to some sort of repayment offer.

Accordingly, the Judge determined that the demands of s 178( 1.1) have actually not been met by Ms. Morrison and her original application is unsuccessful. Therefore, he reversed the Registrar’s decision and allowed the appeal of CSL and OSL.

The Judge further ordered that she is, nevertheless, at liberty to make a re-application (in this bankruptcy) no earlier than one year from the date of his decision. He further stated that any re-application will need to be supported by proof of good faith in relation to any kind of settlement to either CSL or OSL as well as her full disclosure of her financial position at that time.

The Judge said he did not wish to “pile on”, so he did not order any costs to be paid.

Student loan bankruptcy discharge Canada summary

I hope that you have found this student loan bankruptcy discharge Canada information useful. Do you have way too much debt? Before you reach the phase where you can’t stay afloat and where financial restructuring is no longer a viable alternative, contact the Ira Smith Team.

We know full well the discomfort and tension excessive debt can create. We can help you to eliminate that pain and address your financial issues supplying timely, realistic and easy to implement action steps in finding the optimal strategy created just for you.

Call Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. today. Make a free appointment to visit with one of the Ira Smith Team for a totally free, no-obligation assessment. You can be on your path to a carefree life Starting Over, Starting Now. Give us a call today so that we can help you return to an anxiety-free and pain-free life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

Tags Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, BIA, can you put student loan on bankruptcy, canada student loans, commercial court, debt problems, financial difficulty, good faith, how can I get my student loans forgiven in Canada, Ira Smith Trustee, ontario student loans, registrar, student loan, student loan bankruptcy, student loan bankruptcy discharge canada, trustee, what happens to student loans if you declare bankruptcy