Canada: Creditor Or Regulator? Nortel, The MOE And Environment V Insolvency

Last Updated: March 29 2012
Article by Dianne Saxe

"Insolvency statutes such as the Canadian Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act do not mesh very well with environmental legislation". Across the country, courts are grappling with the messy conflicts between insolvency law and environmental statutes. Can provincial environmental ministries use their regulatory powers to force the funds of insolvent organizations to be spent on environmental cleanups, in priority to the claims of creditors, pensioners, employees, and others?

In Re Nortel, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment proposed to use Directors' Orders to force Nortel to spend at least $18 million on investigating and remediating chlorinated solvent contamination on properties long since sold, and no longer used by Nortel. In at least one case, the contamination predated Nortel's original acquisition of the property.

Nortel entered CCAA proceedings in 2009, which means that all financial claims against it are subject to a court-ordered Stay. This year, it successfully asked the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, to apply the Stay to protect it from these Ministry Orders. The ministry argued that it was merely exercising its regulatory functions, which are not subject to insolvency rules. The court disagreed.

Judge Morawetz ruled that, where the Ministry tries to force a company to spend money on past contamination, unrelated to the obligations of a going forward business, the ministry is making a financial "claim" like any other creditor, and must share in the available assets under insolvency laws, like any other creditor. "If there are continuing operations, there has to be ongoing compliance with environmental legislation. But if there are no ongoing operations, the environmental regulator has to rely on its security, failing which it has unsecured status...Where the debtor does not own land on which an environmental condition or damage is present, any claim by the MOE in respect of that condition or damage is unsecured."

When there is a frank conflict between federal insolvency laws and provincial environmental laws, federal laws are paramount and the provincial law must give way. There can be precisely such a conflict when provincial governments try to use their order powers to leapfrog other creditors in an insolvency.

Here are excerpts from Judge Morawetz' persuasive, if somewhat technical, analysis:

"[104] I do not take issue with the submission of counsel to the MOE that the Minister has the discretion under the legislation and, if the Minister is solely acting in its regulatory capacity, it can do so unimpeded by the Stay. This is the effect of s. 11.1(2) of the CCAA.

[105] However, it seems to me that, when the entity that is the subject of the MOE's attention is insolvent and not carrying on operations at the property in question, it is necessary to consider the substance of the MOE's actions. If the result of the issuance of the MOE Orders is that Nortel is required to react in a certain way, it follows, in the present circumstances, that Nortel will be required to incur a financial obligation to comply. It is not a question of altering its operational activities in order to comply with the EPA on a going forward basis. There is no going forward business. Nortel is in a position where it has no real option but to pay money to comply with any environmental issue. In my view, if the MOE moves from draft orders to issued orders, the result is clear. The MOE would be, in reality, enforcing a payment obligation, which step is prohibited by the Stay.

[106] .... Regardless of whether the MOE's activities result in a direct claim as against Nortel, or a claim against third parties who in turn will make a claim against Nortel, the result, for practical purposes, is the same. It seems to me that the critical point to be determined is not the distinction between performance obligations and monetary obligations, but rather it is whether the actions of the MOE are such that Nortel is required to react or respond to a step taken by the MOE and in doing so, incur a financial obligation. In my view, the effect of the MOE Orders, if issued, is to require Nortel to prepare an action plan, which results in Nortel having to incur a financial obligation.

[107] I do not agree with the MOE's contention that financial obligations incurred by Nortel for the purpose of complying with the MOE Orders are different from obligations incurred directly to the Crown. For the purpose of Nortel's CCAA proceedings, what matters is that Nortel is obligated to undertake remedial work which will result in Nortel expending money. Any money expended by Nortel in respect of MOE obligations is money that is directed away from creditors participating in the insolvency proceedings. The same insolvency considerations ought to apply regardless of who receives the money. In my view, this view is consistent with the "single proceeding model" discussed by the Supreme Court in Century Services...

[111] Subsection 12(1) of the CCAA (as it existed in January, 2009, and which applies in the present case) defines "claim" as "any indebtedness, liability or obligation of any kind that, if unsecured, would be a debt provable in bankruptcy within the meaning of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act". The meaning of "indebtedness, liability or obligation" is to be determined by reference to whether a claim is a debt provable in bankruptcy.

[112] The reference to "debt provable" in s. 12(1) of the CCAA, which references the BIA, has to be considered in the context of s. 2 of the BIA, which refers to "claim provable" and directs that "claim provable in bankruptcy", "provable claim" and "claim provable" include any claim or liability provable by a creditor in proceedings under the BIA.

[113] Subsection 121(1) of the BIA addresses what are claims provable. It provides:

All debts and liabilities, present or future, to which the bankrupt is subject on the day on which the bankrupt becomes bankrupt or to which the bankrupt may become subject before the bankrupt's discharge by reason of any obligation incurred before the day on which the bankrupt becomes bankrupt shall be deemed to be claims provable in proceedings under this Act.

[114] Section 14.06(8) of the BIA, entitled "Claim for clean-up costs," contains an exception to s. 121(1):

Despite subsection 121(1), a claim against a debtor in a bankruptcy or proposal for the costs of remedying any environmental condition or environmental damage affecting real property or an immovable of the debtor shall be a provable claim, whether the condition arose or the damage occurred before or after the date of the filing of the proposal or the date of the bankruptcy.

[115] The impact of these statutory provisions requires a full consideration of the position of the MOE. In my view, it is necessary to take into account the defining event for a claim. In this case, the defining event is the point at which the condition arose or the damage occurred.

[116] It is also important to note that s. 14.06(8), unlike other subsections of s. 14.06, is not restricted in its application to a trustee. On the contrary, the focus of s. 14.06(8) is related to s. 121(1) – provable claims. As such, it seems to me that Parliament clearly directed its mind to the issue of creating an exception to s. 121(1) of the BIA and in doing so addressed the issue as to how environmental conditions and damage were to be addressed by an insolvent debtor. The BIA and CCAA have to take into account the reality that a debtor may not have continuing operations. If there are continuing operations, there has to be ongoing compliance with environmental legislation. But if there are no ongoing operations, the environmental regulator has to rely on its security, failing which it has unsecured status.

[117] Further, while it is apparent that s. 11.8(8) of the CCAA does not apply in the current circumstances as Nortel no longer owns any real property at the Impacted Sites, with the exception of the Retained Lands at the London site, s.11.8(9) does apply and is conspicuous in its similarities to s. 14.06(8) of the BIA. Subsection 11.8(9) of the CCAA, entitled "Claim for clean-up costs", directs that:

A claim against a debtor company for costs of remedying any environmental condition or environmental damage affecting real property of the company shall be a claim under this Act, whether the condition arose or the damage occurred before or after the date on which proceedings under this Act were commenced.

[118] A priority scheme has also been enacted and is contained in s. 11.8(8). In this case, the priority scheme is of limited effect as Nortel does not own the property in question, save for the Retained Lands at the London site. The result, in my view, is straightforward. The MOE can look to whatever security may be available, failing which it has unsecured status.

...[121] The event that gives rise to a CCAA claim against Nortel has already occurred, as the events giving rise to the "environmental condition or environmental damage" have taken place. The only step that has yet to take place is the quantification of the claim, but the absence of that quantification does not impact on the analysis of the position of the MOE. The MOE has the option of not filing a claim. If it chooses this route, there will eventually be a distribution to creditors without participation by the MOE. If the MOE attempts to crystallize its claim at some future time, it may have to accept the consequences of its failure to act in a more timely basis. Section 14.06(8) of the BIA makes it clear that any claim of the MOE is a provable claim in a CCAA proceeding.

[122] The preceding statutory analysis echoes the observations of the court in AbitibiBowater, at paragraphs 118 to 120. In my view, given the Supreme Court's guidance with respect to the convergence of the two insolvency statutes, the proper interpretation of the above provisions is they direct that once steps are taken by the MOE to require Nortel to take actions in respect of a factual matrix that arose prior to the filing date, if those actions require a monetary expenditure they must, for the purposes of the CCAA, be considered to be part of a claims process and must also, by necessity, be stayed.

[123] In my view, the distinction drawn by the MOE is blurred. In an insolvency context, the distinction should not be based on whether the order is characterized as a "regulatory" order or a "financial" order. Rather, it should be based on the real effect of the actions taken by the regulator. The MOE's position regarding where on its continuum it ceases to act as a regulator and commences acting as a creditor is not the determining factor in the analysis of this issue.

[124] It seems to me that it is not open to the MOE to take the position that the fact situation is too speculative or too remote, such that they cannot formulate a claim. This argument is addressed by s. 14.06(8) of the BIA.

[125] In my view, it is necessary to comment on the Strathcona case, relied upon by the MOE. I note that in this case the court applied what it referred to as the "Panamericana principle." Abiding by this principle, the court characterized a debtor's obligation to complete drainage work as an obligation owed to the public, not to the regulator per se. The regulator is just the vehicle that protects the public's interest, and where the Panamericana principle applies, the debtor must pay to fulfill the obligation to the public in priority to all secured creditors. The court interpreted s. 14.06(8) narrowly, stating, at para. 42, that it is intended "only to overcome what would otherwise be the effect of s. 121(1)." The court reasoned that but for s. 14.06(8), s. 121(1) would direct that an environmental claim arising after the date of bankruptcy but before discharge might not be a provable claim. The court's view was that s. 14.06(8) is designed only to deal with that timing issue.

[126] In my view, the Panamericana principle, as articulated above, does not reflect the clear intention of Parliament as evidenced in the BIA. Section 11.8(8) of the BIA delineates, and thus limits, the scope of the MOE's security in this context. It states that the "costs of remedying any environmental condition or environmental damage affecting real property of the company is secured by a charge on the real property and on any other real property of the company that is contiguous thereto." If the MOE's claim was characterized as an obligation Nortel owed to the public, and the Panamericana principle were applied, the MOE Orders would be granted priority over all secured creditors, placing the MOE in a better position than that which is directed by s. 11.8(8).

[127] The MOE clearly does have options. It can maintain its position that it is not a creditor. However, if this position is maintained, the MOE must recognize that it will not be in a position to effect any remedy against Nortel arising out of any draft order that has been posted on the EBR Registry or any subsequent order. These draft orders "require" Nortel and other responsible parties to submit and implement workplans for certain investigations. The moment that Nortel is "required" to undertake such activity it is "required" to expend monies in response to actions being taken by the MOE. In my view, any such financial activity that Nortel is required to undertake is stayed by the provisions of the Initial Order.

[128] The assets of Nortel have been sold and substantial proceeds are being held pending a determination of the allocation of assets as between various Nortel entities and the quantification of claims as against various Nortel entities. At this point, a distribution to unsecured creditors seems likely.

[129] It is open to the MOE to maintain its position that it does not have a claim as a creditor. If so, the consequences of taking such a position are obvious. Distributions will eventually be made to creditors of Nortel and, if the MOE chooses not to participate as a creditor, it will not receive a distribution. On the other hand, if the MOE decides to file a claim, it could very well be that its claim will be valued and a distribution provided to the MOE. Section 14.06(8) of the BIA makes it clear that any claim of the MOE arising from environmental conditions on properties which are or have been owned by Nortel are claims in Nortel's CCAA proceedings...

CONCLUSION

[133] I agree with the court's analysis in AbitibiBowater, and, in my view, it applies to the present case. As the court in that case recognized, the relevant case law directs that CCAA courts ought to take a substance over form approach. In my view, the MOE Orders, if issued, are, in substance, financial obligations for Nortel.

[134] Further, through s. 11.8(8), the CCAA recognizes that claims for the costs of remedying environmental conditions and environmental damage can arise in an insolvency context. When this occurs, the CCAA stipulates the extent of the security accorded to the claimants: "a charge on the real property and on any other real property of the company that is contiguous thereto and that is related to the activity that caused the environmental condition or environmental damage" [emphasis added]. Where the security stipulated in s. 11.8(8) is absent, the claimant is unsecured.

[135] In Nortel Networks Corp. (Re) 2009 CanLII 39492 (ON SC), (2009) 55 C.B.R. (5th) 229, I recognized that the CCAA can be applied in a liquidating insolvency. In such circumstances, the CCAA directs that where the debtor does not own land on which an environmental condition or damage is present, any claim by the MOE in respect of that condition or damage is unsecured.

[136] Given my conclusion that the MOE Orders are, in these circumstances, financial obligations, an operational conflict between the EPA and the CCAA exists. I accept counsel to Nortel's submission that, given that conflict, otherwise valid provincial legislation is superseded. See Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta 2007 SCC 22 (CanLII), 2007 SCC 22; Nortel Networks Corporation (Re) 2009 ONCA 833 (CanLII), 2009 ONCA 833 at paras. 36-38; Harbert Distressed Investment Fund, LP v. General Chemical Canada Ltd. 2007 ONCA 600 (CanLII), 2007 ONCA 600, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed 2008 CarswellOnt 879; AbitibiBowater, supra, at para. 270.

DISPOSITION

[137] In the result, the Nortel Motion is granted. I have concluded that the MOE's posting of a draft Director's Order on the EBR Registry for public comment is the first step on the road to the enforcement of a financial and monetary claim. Because the MOE Orders are draft orders, they are not yet in breach of the Stay. However, if issued they would require Nortel to respond, causing Nortel to incur a liability which would be stayed by the Stay. It is not open for the MOE to take any steps to confirm the draft MOE Orders. It is open, however, for the MOE to take a step to withdraw the draft Director's Order.

[138] However, it is recognized that the MOE may have secured status under s. 11.8(8) with respect to the Retained Lands at the London site.

[139] A declaration is also to be issued that all proceedings before the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal in relation to the MOE Orders are stayed.

[140] Authorization is also provided to the Nortel Applicants to cease performing any remediation at or in relation to the Impacted Sites and a declaration shall issue that any claims in relation to such current or future remediation requirements by the MOE against any of the Nortel Applicants or their current or former directors or officers in relation to the Impacted Sites, whether statutory, contractual, or otherwise, are subject to resolution and determination in accordance with the terms of the Amended and Restated Claims Procedure Order dated July 30, 2009 and the Claims Resolution Order dated September 16, 2010.

[141] The Nortel Applicants are also released from all contractual obligations to carry out remediation requirements at the Impacted Sites."

Reportedly, the MOE has not yet decided whether it will appeal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Dianne Saxe
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions