Articles 2020

In late 2019, section 18.6 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangements Act and section 4.2 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act were introduced, requiring all interested parties to a proceeding to act in good faith. The 2019 Amendments do not define “good faith” or provide specific remedies for a breach of it. Rather, the amendments provide the court with unfettered discretion to make any order it considers appropriate when a stakeholder breaches its good faith obligation.

Following are this week's summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of August 22, 2022.

Two pieces of draft legislation – one to make technical amendments to the Income Tax Act (“ITA”) and Income Tax Regulations (“Regulations”), and one to implement parts of Budget 2022, among other proposals, by amending the ITA and Regulations – have been released. This article, which is Part III of a Three-Part series, will discuss other updates contained in the draft legislation.

Two pieces of draft legislation – one to make technical amendments to the Income Tax Act (“ITA”) and Income Tax Regulations (“Regulations”), and one to implement parts of Budget 2022, among other proposals, by amending the ITA and Regulations – have been released. This article, which is Part II of a Three-Part series, will updated reporting requirements for trusts.

Two pieces of draft legislation – one to make technical amendments to the Income Tax Act (“ITA”) and Income Tax Regulations (“Regulations”), and one to implement parts of Budget 2022, among other proposals, by amending the ITA and Regulations – have been released. This article, which is Part I of a Three-Part series, will discuss the disbursement quota.

In Lubas v Wayland Group, Justice Morgan’s interpretation of s. 29.1 of the CPA represents a liberal and flexible interpretation of that provision. While Justice Morgan recognized the trend in the caselaw towards dismissing for delay when the criteria were not strictly met, he expressly noted that he was prepared to be an outlier that took a more liberal approach that would not automatically see cases dismissed for delay.

Following are this week's summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of August 15, 2022.

Harte Gold Corp (Re) held that greater scrutiny should be exercised when deciding to grant an RVO, that RVOs should be considered an extraordinary measure. The impact of this case is that parties seeking approval for their RVO structure will be required to meet a higher evidentiary threshold, allowing a court to determine that their RVO structure is necessary, economical, and a viable alternative, that causes the least amount of harm to all stakeholders in comparison to alternate options.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s April 2022 decision in The Estate of Mary Fleury et al v. Olayiwola A. Kassim is a noteworthy one. Not only does it provide a modern case study of the application of the common law principles surrounding delayed diagnosis, but it also provides new guidance regarding the standard of care, specifically, the standard of care for anatomic pathologists.

Here are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of August 8, 2022.