What do a car crash in Alberta, a delinquent farm mortgage in
Saskatchewan and an unpaid highway toll ticket in Ontario have in
They all ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court issued reasons for judgment in the following
three cases, each of which wrestled with the constitutional concept
of paramountcy in the context of a bankruptcy or insolvency:
407 ETR Concession Co. v. Canada (Superintendent of
Bankruptcy), 2015 SCC 52; Alberta (Attorney General) v.
Moloney, 2015 SCC 51; and Saskatchewan (Attorney General)
v. Lemare Lake Logging Ltd., 2015 SCC 53.
If valid federal legislation and valid provincial legislation
"clash", then under the constitutional doctrine of
paramountcy the federal legislation prevails. Essentially the tie
goes to the Feds.
There is substantial room for debate as to whether a
"clash" exists, or the extent or degree of a clash that
must exist before provincial legislation is trumped using the
For example the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
(the "BIA") empowers the Trustee to sell the assets.
Under provincial law some assets, cigarettes and liquor for
instance, can only be sold with provincially issued permits or
licences. Is this a "clash" if the Trustee is able apply
for such permits?
In this trio of cases, the court had to come to grips with
paramountcy in three different circumstances;
In Alberta, Mr. Moloney,
while driving his car caused uninsured damage, became indebted to
the province and under provincial legislation was not entitled to
renew his driver's license until he had dealt with the debt. He
went bankrupt and the debt was discharged under the federal BIA.
The province would not renew his licence.
In Saskatchewan, a mortgagee
moved for the appointment of a receiver under the provisions of the
BIA in respect of an insolvent company that owned a farm.
Provincial farm protection legislation established a lengthy
process of mediation before steps could be taken to enforce a
mortgage on a farm, including the appointment of a receiver. Can
the farm protection legislation be avoided by using the much
quicker BIA receiver process?
In Ontario, Mr. Moore did
not pay the toll charges for driving on a provincial highway.
Provincial law provided that he could not obtain registration for
his vehicles until the debt was paid. Mr. Moore went bankrupt and
the debt was discharged under the federal BIA. The province would
not register his vehicles.
Will Mr.Moloney and Mr. Moore drive again?
Will the farm be saved?
In the result, the farm is saved and Messrs. Moloney and Moore
are free to roam the highways of Alberta and Ontario.
The Court held that to determine if there was a sufficient
"clash" between the Federal and Provincial legislation to
invoke paramountcy one of two circumstances must exist:
there must be an operational
conflict, it must be impossible to comply with both statutes,
if there is not an
operational conflict, the Provincial statute must frustrate the
purpose of the Federal Statute.
In Moloney and Moore, the Court found an operational conflict.
The BIA had discharged both debts and prevented the creditor from
trying to collect it. The Provincial statute was aimed at
collecting the debt. An operational conflict existed.
In Lemare, the Court concluded that it was possible to comply
with both statutes. A secured creditor could proceed first with the
provincial farm protection process that involved a 150 day delay,
and then apply under the BIA for a receiver. Thus, there was no
operational conflict. The Court then considered whether the 150 day
delay inherent in the provincial legislation frustrated the purpose
of the federal BIA provision that permitted the appointment of a
receiver after a ten day notice period. The Court held that the
purpose of the BIA provision was not to establish a maximum notice
period of 10 days, but to permit the appointment of a receiver who
would have national standing. Provincial legislation mandating a
longer notice period did not frustrate the purpose of the federal
statute of giving national status to the federal receiver. Thus
paramountcy was not triggered and the Saskatchewan farm legislation
The decisions highlight the application of the paramountcy
analysis in the context of "potential clashes" between
provincial regulation and the federal insolvency laws. In short,
the court takes a very restrictive view of when statutes in fact
"clash" instead preferring to find a way for compliance
with both statutes. Provincial legislation will only yield on the
grounds of paramountcy where the provincial regulation is regarded
as frustrating the purpose and object of the insolvency
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.
The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.
From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.
Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.
The Canadian bankruptcy regime was designed with two key purposes in mind – provide options to ‘honest but unfortunate' debtors struggling with an unmanageable financial load and create an orderly means for creditors to recover amounts owed them.
The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta authorized a disposition of a debtor's assets by a receiver immediately upon appointment and without being forced to conduct a marketing process within the receivership proceedings.
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).