Canada: Cow Harbour True Lease Characterization Decision Released: Moving In The Right Direction

Last Updated: April 2 2012
Article by Suhuyini Abudulai and Jonathan Fleisher

Whether a lease is a "true" or "finance" lease has been debated in Canadian courts for decades in many different contexts. The consequences of the categorization of a lease can have a material impact on the recovery that a lessor may have in an insolvency of its lessee. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently released its decision in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada v. Cow Harbour Ltd. and 1134252 Alberta Ltd. ("Cow Harbour") on January 23, 2012. This is one of the most important recent decisions in this debate and provides significant guidance as to how leases are to be classified in insolvency cases. We will review, at a high level, the tests that the court used in making its decision and offer an alternative analysis of what we believe should be the proper process.

Generally speaking, if a lease is determined to be a "true" lease, then the lessor is entitled to be paid rent during the restructuring period and may not be subject to certain costs associated with the restructuring. Accordingly, the economic impact of not being a "true" lease can be very significant difference in the recovery obtained. Historically, the determination also impacted whether leases had to be registered under the Personal Property Security Act ("PPSA") but recent changes to the PPSA have made this debate a non-issue. Unfortunately, the statutes governing Canadian insolvency legislation simply utilize the word "lease" but do not provide for any commentary or direction as to the meaning of the term. Reliance is placed on the common law and the common law, not surprisingly, is unclear. To complicate matters, tax and accounting have different tests for "true" and "finance" leases that are not common law driven but rules based.

Lessors will often structure leases such that they will achieve the tax or accounting test for "true" leases, mistakenly thinking that they have achieved the same results for insolvency purposes. The accounting test under GAAP (as opposed to IFRS) is relatively black and white, focusing on residual value and who holds that risk. The legal test for insolvency purposes, however, does not use such a simplistic formulation and, as a result, confusion and frustration in the industry has reigned. While the recent Cow Harbour discussion is helpful in reducing this frustration, it does not end it.

The leading case used in insolvency courts in determining whether a lease is a "true" or "finance" lease is Smith Brothers Contracting Ltd.1 ("Smith Brothers"). This case gave a very narrow and restrictive interpretation. Overly simplified, a true lease is defined as the payment for use of an asset where ownership resides with the lessor and is not a disguised security agreement. The intent of the parties, as opposed to the form of the document, is a key consideration. The complication arose in how the intent of the parties was determined. The court adopted a list of factors used in the US and developed by Professor Cummings. This is referred to as the "Cummings List". In Smith Brothers and other cases, the Cummings List was reviewed as against the subject lease. Then, based on the review of how many factors were indicative of "true" or "finance" lease, a decision was arrived at. In many cases the process involved determining how many factors were on each side of the equation.
It has always been questionable if this approach was correct for two basic reasons:

  1. The Cummings List is adopted from US law and practice. While Canada shares similarities in law to the US, there are differences. At its most simple, one of the factors in the Cummings List is whether the lease is registered under the Uniform Commercial Code (the US version of the PPSA). In Canada, this factor is meaningless as all leases of greater than one year must be registered. As, this factor is meaningless in a Canadian context, a mere adding up of factors and seeing how many are on each side is fundamentally flawed. On a similar vein, certain of the factors if followed would result in uneconomic activities. The classic example is insurance. For a long term lease, a lessee can obtain insurance at a lower cost than a lessor. If a lessor wanted to ensure true lease treatment utilizing the Cummings List it would arrange for insurance notwithstanding the higher cost. Uneconomic activities would be the result.
  2. If a list of factors is to be developed, consideration needs to be given as to those which carry the highest probative value. To our knowledge there has never been a case decided where the purchase option amount is nominal and the lease was determined to be a "true" lease. In essence, there are clear factors recognized by the industry and courts which are clearly indicative of a "true" lease categorization, regardless of the presence of other factors. Other commentaries have advanced the theory that there are primary and secondary factors and that greater weight needs to be provided to those which carry higher probative value, the prime example being the purchase option.  

In Cow Harbour, the Honourable Mr. Justice K.D. Yamauchi provided an excellent overview of the decision to date and the various arguments made by commentators. He also recognized that the court was bound by prior decisions and had to apply the law based on those prior principles. It is interesting to note that encompassed in the decision was a discussion of whether there should be a distinction of the "true" and "finance" leases in an insolvency context and the economic impact of such distinction. Justice Yamauchi noted that the current state of the law is that financing leases are not considered "leases" for the purpose of insolvency status but openly questioned whether this was a correct and equitable result. Many commentators have taken the position that this original distinction between the two leases is likely wrong from an economic standpoint and should be reviewed. The analysis set out in Cow Harbour will assist in the future in making an alternative finding if the correct set of circumstances arise and may eliminate this unfair dichotomy.

In making its determination, the court had to strike a balance between existing precedents (as this was a lower court) and the reality of the case. The court clearly accepted the Smith Brothers as the leading case and adopted the Cummings List. Equally, the court was mindful that a holistic approach as opposed to a simple adding up of the factors should be used. While noting that one factor cannot trump the others in respect of the legal test, the court did note that all of the factors taken as a whole must be reviewed in their entirety to determine the intent of the parties. These guiding principles were then utilized in reviewing each of the leases. This approach was adopted by the court to allow them to, on the one hand, follow past precedents, but on the other hand acknowledge that a greater analytic approach was required.

The approach utilized by the court was to review each of the leases as against the Cummings List and then focus on certain of the factors in greater detail. It should be noted that in no circumstance did the court adopt the approach of simply adding up the factors and seeing which side had the majority. Notwithstanding the court's view that no one factor trumps others, what clearly becomes apparent is that certain factors, such as purchase option pricing, became the most significant factor. Factors such as a traditional default clause which provided for the acceleration of rent, which prior decisions held as determinative was rejected. The key test in a default clause was which party retained the surplus.

When reviewing the decision as a whole, certain themes evolved but were not explicitly set out. Interestingly these themes would have been the expectation of most industry observers. 

  1. If there was a purchase option for nominal value or if the lessee was responsible for the lessor's loss upon the ultimate disposition of the equipment, then the lease would be a finance lease. Accordingly, and not unexpectedly, dollar option leases and TRAC leases will be "finance" lease.
  2. If a stretch lease is utilized i.e. a lease that has a set purchase option at a particular time and then if the purchase option is not exercised the lessee can renew for a period of time where the lease payments over that renewal period were equal to the purchase option price, then the lease would be a "finance" lease.
  3. If the purchase option price is set as either (i) a fair market value (and there is some value of the equipment at the end of the term); or (ii) as a percentage of the original equipment cost which is a reasonable estimate of the value of the equipment at the end of the term, then the lease will, absent other factor to the contrary, be a "true" lease. The determination of what a reasonable estimate of the value is not fully explored in this case. It was clear that the court was deferential to the expertise of the parties where it was clear that the parties were mindful of the structure. From a practice point, it is suggested that clients should better document how they derive the purchase option amount.
  4. Default provisions where the surplus was retained by the lessor were indicative of a "true" lease.
  5. Security deposits, while problematical, can be retained but they should not be of a size or nature that they change the economics of the transaction, and that the taking of such a deposit should be directly related to the risk involved in the transaction.
  6. If the amount of the lease payments made over the term of the lease, even with a non-nominal purchase option, greatly exceed the purchase price of the assets, then it is more likely to be determined to be a "finance" lease. While this principle was accepted by the court, there was little discussion of the cost of capital which should be calculated into the equation.
  7. The inclusion of excess usage costs was helpful in determining a "true" lease.
  8. Return conditions that a) could be achieved (i.e. not so complicated that they could not be met) and b) were possible to comply with in an economic sense (i.e. if the equipment has to be returned to the opposite side of the country and the cost of moving the equipment was greater than its value) were also factored into the "true" lease analysis.

Summary – Lesson Learned

The court, while at time using mental gymnastics to distinguish prior case law, came to what were the expected results at least from an industry perspective. What was disappointing was that the process used in coming to this determination was based on outdated or simply wrong concepts. The judge did an admirable job of distinguishing previous case law where possible but was still bound by precedent. It is suggested that a new approach be utilized based on industry expectations in order to enhance certainty to the industry when structuring transactions. The rationale is that absent certainty, a lessor will take a more risk adverse approach which either reduces liquidity or increases borrowing costs which reduces productivity. Given that Canada's productivity is a constant economic problem, any costless change to enhance productivity should be welcome. It seems odd that one of the stated goals of insolvency legislation is to assist debtors in restructuring but the tools to keep them solvent (being able to lease equipment) prior to filing for protection is so unclear that finance companies may be unwilling to lend when companies need the greatest assistance.

It is suggested that the test should follow the results as set out in Cow Harbour, but it should be set out explicitly. It is reminiscent of the late 1400's when Copernicus reviewed the star charts developed using an earth-centric or Ptolemaic system, which had become over-complicated, and by moving to a heliocentric system (the sun to the centre), simplified the understanding of the motion of planets. There should be a wholesale recognition that the current system has become over-complicated and it would be helpful to re-evaluate the analysis without reliance on the past precedent. It is time for a refresh. Justice Yamauchi went a clear step in that direction in his well written and coherent analysis but it is suggested that a clean break from past decisions would have been more desirable (although it is recognized that a lower court could not make such a radical change).

As noted earlier, the Cummings List is simply not an appropriate test in making the determination. Many of the factors listed are at best minor and should be removed, and the test provides no guidance as to weighing of the factors. This test should be abandoned and a new test adopted. The test should be simple to understand and easy to determine. It is suggested that a test be modeled on the following concepts:

  1. Is the lessee building up an equity interest in the asset? If yes, then it is a "finance" lease. If the purchase option is fair market value (other than a nominal fair market value) or where it is a reasonable estimate, then equity is not being built up and a "true" lease would be the result. This simple test would also eliminate stretch leases as "true" leases. Clearly the test would have to be mindful of the various methods lessors use in forcing lessees to purchase at the end of the term e.g., a) return condition that cannot be met; b) notice clauses that are obscure; and c) equipment which would cost too much to maintain.
  2. Which party has the residual risk? If the lessee has the risk, then it is a finance lease.
  3. Is there value of the asset at the end of the term of the lease?
  4. Which party has the equity of redemption?

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

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

Suhuyini Abudulai
Jonathan Fleisher
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.