The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) has ushered in a
bold new era for Canadian investors in its final push to modernize
the regulation of investment funds. On September 22, 2016, the CSA
published proposed amendments to National Instrument 81-102
Investment Funds (NI 81-102), Companion Policy 81-102CP
and related national instruments
available here which, when adopted in final form, will
permit alternative mutual funds to be offered to retail investors
in Canada in much the same manner as conventional mutual funds are
currently offered. With these rule amendments, the CSA are
finalizing their investment fund modernization rule review project
that was launched in 2010 and described in some detail in 2011.
The ultimate effect of the proposed amendments will be to bring
conventional mutual funds, "alternative funds" and
closed-end funds (non-redeemable investment funds) under the same
regulatory umbrella, with much the same regulation, but with
important and significant differences, especially as it applies to
investment restrictions for each of these categories of funds.
The proposed amendments will provide managers with a promising
opportunity to bring alternative fund strategies to retail
investors and include some positive changes for conventional mutual
funds, including exchange traded funds (ETFs), but may also present
new challenges to some closed end funds (non-redeemable investment
funds), given the proposal to add new investment restrictions to
The comment period on the proposed amendments ends on December
The only PPSA registration the bank holds against our borrower expired without having been renewed. Is it possible for the bank to file a late renewal and regain its first priority position against the borrower's other secured creditors?
Most secured lenders have the benefit of a full slate of negative covenants in their formal loan and security documents to restrict the actions of their borrower that might jeopardize the borrower's ability to repay the loan.
Guarantors beware: the Court of Appeal, in The Toronto-Dominion Bank v Konga,1 held that the guarantor was required to pay in response to a demand for payment pursuant to a guarantee, even where the debtor corporation had not failed to make a payment under the loan agreement.
The Ontario Divisional Court recently provided guidance with respect to excluding co-parties from each other's examination for discovery. In Lazar v TD General Insurance Company, the defendant sought to examine the plaintiffs (a married couple) individually, outside the presence of the other.
A recent Ontario Divisional Court decision, CIBC Mortgages Inc. v Computershare Trust Company of Canada, confirms that a mortgage lender may lose priority if their mortgage is fraudulently discharged by the mortgagor.
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).