Century Services Inc v Canada (AG)

Last updated
Century Services Inc v Canada (AG)
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: May 11, 2010
Judgment: December 16, 2010
Citations 2010 SCC 60, [2010] 3 SCR 379
Docket No. 33239
Prior historyAppealed from Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and 383838 B.C. Ltd. (re.), (2008 BCSC 1805, 2008 G.S.T.C. 221); Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. (Re), (2009 BCCA 205, 270 B.C.A.C. 167)
Court membership
Chief Justice McLachlin C.J.
Puisne Justices Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Reasons given
MajorityDeschamps J.
ConcurrenceFish J.
DissentAbella J.
Laws applied
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Excise Tax Act (GST)

Century Services Inc v Canada (AG) [1] is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that describes the interrelationship between the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in governing Canadian insolvency law, and how other federal statutes are accordingly construed.

Contents

Facts

Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd was one of the largest independent logging contractors on Vancouver Island. In December 2007, it was notified that, as it was in breach of certain loan covenants, its outstanding loans had to be immediately repaid. The company filed for protection under the CCAA. [2] [3] The court authorized LeRoy to dispose of certain redundant assets.

Century Services Inc was one of the major secured creditors of LeRoy. In April 2008, the court authorized a payment to Century not to exceed $5 million from the proceeds of disposal. As LeRoy also owed a significant liability with respect to Goods and Services Tax, it proposed that an amount equal to the liability be held back from the payment to Century and kept in the Monitor's trust account until the outcome of the reorganization was known. The court agreed and so ordered.

In September 2008, LeRoy concluded that reorganization was not possible and accordingly applied for an assignment into bankruptcy. The Crown applied to have the holdback released for payment and remitted to settle the GST liability.

The issue

Under the Excise Tax Act, GST that is collected is deemed to be held in trust for the Crown, and that this takes precedence over any other statute other than the BIA. However, the CCAA states that, subject to certain exceptions (none of which relate to GST), deemed trusts do not exist in its proceedings. There was certain jurisprudence that held that the ETA took precedence. Was that correct?

The judgments below

The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that, as the funds were being held pending the emergence of a viable reorganization plan, the fact that this was unsuccessful meant that the Crown would lose its priority as a result of the assignment into bankruptcy. Accordingly, the Crown's application was dismissed.

This order was overturned on appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The court unanimously held:

Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

The Court of Appeal's decision was reversed. The following were identified as the key issues in the appeal:

The court held that:

Purpose and scope of insolvency law

As this was the first time a case relating to the CCAA had been heard by the Supreme Court - which it acknowledged in its decision - a detailed analysis was given in explaining the nature of insolvency law in Canada.

The BIA provides a more rules-based approach for resolving a corporate debtor's insolvency, which must be observed strictly. The CCAA, on the other hand, provides a more discretionary approach that is remedial in nature, which therefore must be broadly construed.

Although the CCAA was originally enacted in 1933, extensive use of it only began in the economic downturn of the early 1980s. Recent legislative amendments of the BIA and CCAA have served to harmonize key aspects, such as the use of single proceedings, a common priority of claims structure, and encouraging reorganization over liquidation.

GST deemed trust under the CCAA

The Parliament of Canada's recent legislative activity has tended to favour the diminishing of the Crown's priority in BIA and CCAA proceedings, and both have been expressly amended accordingly. As the ETA does not contain such express language on the subject, it must be construed within the framework of the insolvency statutes.

Discretionary power of a court in a CCAA reorganization

The legislation is remedial in the purest sense in that it provides a means whereby the devastating social and economic effects of bankruptcy or creditor initiated termination of ongoing business operations can be avoided while a court-supervised attempt to reorganize the financial affairs of the debtor company is made.

— - Elan Corp. v. Comiskey, (1990), 41 O.A.C. 282, at para. 57, per Doherty J.A., dissenting (quoted at paragraph 59)

This is noted together with s. 11 of the CCAA, which states that a court may, "subject to the restrictions set out in this Act, . . . make any order that it considers appropriate in the circumstances".

The decision notes the interrelated nature of proceedings under the CCAA and BIA:

[76] There is no doubt that had reorganization been commenced under the BIA instead of the CCAA, the Crown's deemed trust priority for the GST funds would have been lost. Similarly, the Crown does not dispute that under the scheme of distribution in bankruptcy under the BIA the deemed trust for GST ceases to have effect. Thus, after reorganization under the CCAA failed, creditors would have had a strong incentive to seek immediate bankruptcy and distribution of the debtor's assets under the BIA. In order to conclude that the discretion does not extend to partially lifting the stay in order to allow for an assignment in bankruptcy, one would have to assume a gap between the CCAA and the BIA proceedings. Brenner C.J.S.C.'s order staying Crown enforcement of the GST claim ensured that creditors would not be disadvantaged by the attempted reorganization under the CCAA. The effect of his order was to blunt any impulse of creditors to interfere in an orderly liquidation. His order was thus in furtherance of the CCAA's objectives to the extent that it allowed a bridge between the CCAA and BIA proceedings. This interpretation of the tribunal's discretionary power is buttressed by s. 20 of the CCAA. That section provides that the CCAA "may be applied together with the provisions of any Act of Parliament . . . that authorizes or makes provision for the sanction of compromises or arrangements between a company and its shareholders or any class of them", such as the BIA. Section 20 clearly indicates the intention of Parliament for the CCAA to operate in tandem with other insolvency legislation, such as the BIA. [77] The CCAA creates conditions for preserving the status quo while attempts are made to find common ground amongst stakeholders for a reorganization that is fair to all. Because the alternative to reorganization is often bankruptcy, participants will measure the impact of a reorganization against the position they would enjoy in liquidation. In the case at bar, the order fostered a harmonious transition between reorganization and liquidation while meeting the objective of a single collective proceeding that is common to both statutes.

Accordingly, the supervising judge had the necessary authority to make the order he did.

Express trusts

Creation of an express trust requires the presence of three certainties: intention, subject matter, and object. There was no certainty that the Crown would actually be the beneficiary, or object, of the trust.

Therefore, no express trust was created in this instance.

Significance

Apart from an initial reference question in 1933 on the validity of the CCAA, [4] this was the first time that an appeal had been heard by the Supreme Court. Until now, Canadian jurisprudence in this area came from the various provincial courts of appeal. Century Services was the first opportunity to explain the complete nature of Canadian insolvency law and how each of the statutes work within that framework. [5]

The CCAA and BIA must not be viewed in isolation, as they have many features that form part of a harmonized structure. Therefore, forum shopping is discouraged and single proceedings are preferred. Because of their harmonized nature, other federal statutes must be accordingly construed.

A court must first interpret the text of the CCAA, and only then may the court look to fill in legislative "gaps" pursuant to its inherent or equitable jurisdiction. In exercising CCAA authority, the court is to bear in mind the requirements of appropriateness, good faith and due diligence as baseline considerations. As to appropriateness, the court is to inquire whether the order sought advances the public policy objectives of the CCAA – avoiding the social and economic losses resulting from a liquidation. [6]

Related Research Articles

Bankruptcy is a legal process through which people or other entities who cannot repay debts to creditors may seek relief from some or all of their debts. In most jurisdictions, bankruptcy is imposed by a court order, often initiated by the debtor.

Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code permits reorganization under the bankruptcy laws of the United States. Such reorganization, known as "Chapter 11 bankruptcy", is available to every business, whether organized as a corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship, and to individuals, although it is most prominently used by corporate entities. In contrast, Chapter 7 governs the process of a liquidation bankruptcy, though liquidation may also occur under Chapter 11; while Chapter 13 provides a reorganization process for the majority of private individuals.

Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end in Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and many other countries. The assets and property of the company are redistributed. Liquidation is also sometimes referred to as winding-up or dissolution, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.

Insolvency State of being unable to pay ones debts

In accounting, insolvency is the state of being unable to pay the debts, by a person or company (debtor), at maturity; those in a state of insolvency are said to be insolvent. There are two forms: cash-flow insolvency and balance-sheet insolvency.

A trustee in bankruptcy is an entity, often an individual, in charge of administering a bankruptcy estate.

<i>Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act</i>

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the Act) is one of the statutes that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada. It governs bankruptcies, consumer and commercial proposals, and receiverships in Canada.

As a legal concept, administration is a procedure under the insolvency laws of a number of common law jurisdictions, similar to bankruptcy in the United States. It functions as a rescue mechanism for insolvent entities and allows them to carry on running their business. The process – in the United Kingdom colloquially called being "under administration" – is an alternative to liquidation or may be a precursor to it. Administration is commenced by an administration order.

Debtor-in-possession financing or DIP financing is a special form of financing provided for companies in financial distress, typically during restructuring under corporate bankruptcy law. Usually, this debt is considered senior to all other debt, equity, and any other securities issued by a company — violating any absolute priority rule by placing the new financing ahead of a company's existing debts for payment.

The Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate matters relating to bankruptcy and insolvency, by virtue of s.91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It has passed the following statutes as a result:

Bankruptcy in Irish Law is a legal process, supervised by the High Court whereby the assets of a personal debtor are realised and distributed amongst his or her creditors in cases where the debtor is unable or unwilling to pay his debts.

Commercial insolvency in Canada

Commercial insolvency in Canada has options and procedures that are distinct from those available in consumer insolvency proceedings. It is governed by the following statutes:

<i>Companies Creditors Arrangement Act</i> Canadian Act of Parliament

The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act is a statute of the Parliament of Canada that allows insolvent corporations owing their creditors in excess of $5 million to restructure their business and financial affairs.

<i>Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, arising from the Ontario courts as Re Indalex Limited, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with the question of priorities of claims in proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and how they intersect with the fiduciary duties employers have as administrators of pension plans.

<i>Winding-up and Restructuring Act</i>

The Winding-up and Restructuring Act ("WURA") is a statute of the Parliament of Canada that provides for the winding up of certain corporations and the restructuring of financial institutions. It was passed in 1985, and has been amended since. Predecessors of the act date back to 1882.

<i>Wage Earner Protection Program Act</i>

The Wage Earner Protection Program Act, is an act of the Parliament of Canada. It was part of a package of reforms to the insolvency law of Canada that were brought into force in 2008 and 2009 to compensate employees of companies made bankrupt or placed into receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It was subsequently expanded in 2011 to cover employees who lose their jobs when their employer's attempt at restructuring subsequently ends in bankruptcy or receivership.

<i>Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc, 2012 SCC 67 is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with whether an obligation incurred under regulatory action constitutes a claim under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, thus becoming subject to a stay of proceedings.

<i>Reference Re Companies Creditors Arrangement Act</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act as part of the bankruptcy and insolvency jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

British Virgin Islands bankruptcy law

British Virgin Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in the Insolvency Act, 2003, and to a lesser degree in the Insolvency Rules, 2005. Most of the emphasis of bankruptcy law in the British Virgin Islands relates to corporate insolvency rather than personal bankruptcy. As an offshore financial centre, the British Virgin Islands has many times more resident companies than citizens, and accordingly the courts spend more time dealing with corporate insolvency and reorganisation.

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in five statutes and statutory instruments:

The anti-deprivation rule is a principle applied by the courts in common law jurisdictions in which, according to Mellish LJ in Re Jeavons, ex parte Mackay, "a person cannot make it a part of his contract that, in the event of bankruptcy, he is then to get some additional advantage which prevents the property being distributed under the bankruptcy laws." Wood VC had earlier observed that "the law is too clearly settled to admit of a shadow of doubt that no person possessed of property can reserve that property to himself until he shall become bankrupt, and then provide that, in the event of his becoming bankrupt, it shall pass to another and not to his creditors."

References

  1. ↑ Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 60, [2010] 3 SCR 379 Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII
  2. ↑ G. Hamilton (2007-12-19). "Cash-flow crisis killing independent loggers". The Vancouver Sun. Archived from the original on 2012-07-29. Retrieved 2011-12-08.
  3. ↑ "Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. - CCAA, Receivership and Bankruptcy Information" . Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  4. ↑ Reference re constitutional validity of the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (Dom.) , 1934 SCC 72 , [1934] SCR 659(6 June 1934)
  5. ↑ Kevin P. McElcheran; Heather L. Meredith (2011-05-20). "Comments on the Supreme Court of Canada's Landmark Insolvency Decision in Ted LeRoy Trucking". McCarthy Tétrault . Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  6. ↑ Sandra Abitan, Andrea Lockhart, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt (2011-05-16). "North of the border update". Weil Bankruptcy Blog. Retrieved 2011-12-09.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.