Canada: Government Environmental Clean-Up Orders Subject to CCAA Debt Restructuring

Copyright 2010, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Environmental Law/ Restructuring & Insolvency, April 2010

On March 31, 2010, the Superior Court of Québec (Court), in Re AbitibiBowater Inc., issued an important decision on when a government regulatory order may be treated as a creditor claim in proceedings under the federal Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The Court ruled that a number of environmental cleanup orders issued by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (Newfoundland Government) against a group of Abitibi and Bowater companies (Abitibi) were really claims for the payment of money. As a result, the Court held that the claims were subject to the stay of proceedings that had been issued in Abitibi's CCAA debt restructuring case and subject to being compromised.

The Newfoundland Government had argued that its clean-up orders were regulatory orders that were specifically excluded from the CCAA stay. The CCAA order issued with respect to Abitibi specifically stated that government "powers, rights or duties in relation to matters involving public health, safety, security, public order or the environment" were not stayed. However, the same section of the Court order said that government "financial or monetary fines or orders shall be stayed." Accordingly, the Newfoundland Government took the position that the orders were not monetary "claims" and were therefore not subject to the CCAA stay order and process established to compromise creditor claims against Abitibi.

The Court rejected the Newfoundland Government's arguments on a number of grounds. The Court drew a distinction between compliance with regulatory orders made in connection with a CCAA debtor's continuing business operations and Abitibi's situation, where the government's environmental orders related to long-standing historical contamination of lands that Abitibi no longer owned. In fact, most of Abitibi's lands in Newfoundland had been expropriated by the Newfoundland Government in December 2008 in what many saw as a highly unusual reaction to Abitibi's financial difficulties.

The Court concluded that the real purpose of the environmental orders was to create claims by the Newfoundland Government that it could assert in response to Abitibi's claims for compensation for the expropriation of its Newfoundland assets. As such, the claims were really claims for money and not just a regulatory matter. The Court also noted that if Abitibi had to comply with the environmental orders, the effect would have been to give the Newfoundland Government a super-priority over the claims of other creditors. The Court held that this would be contrary to the principles of the CCAA and unjust to Abitibi's other creditors.

The Factual Background

Abitibi carried on extensive industrial activities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for most of the 20th century. Facing economic difficulties, it decided to end its operations in the province in December 2008. Shortly after Abitibi announced the closure of its last mill, the Newfoundland Government nationalized substantially all of the company's assets in the province, without compensation.

AbitibiBowater Inc., being a U.S. corporation, filed a notice of intent in April 2009 to submit the matter to arbitration under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). A notice of arbitration requesting compensation in excess of C$300-million was filed on February 25, 2010. From July through November 2009, the Newfoundland Government carried out environmental site assessments on former Abitibi properties across the province. It also sought access to the company's financial information, which request was denied by the Court in November 2009.

Three days later, the Newfoundland Government issued five ministerial orders under the provincial Environmental Protection Act (EPA) requiring Abitibi to (i) submit remediation action plans for five properties to the Newfoundland Government by January 15, 2010; (ii) complete site remediation actions by January 15, 2011; and by the same date, (iii) close all landfills and lagoons/impoundments associated with those properties. Complying with the orders involved costs estimated at over C$100-million. Similar environmental orders may be issued by all Canadian provincial governments.

Abitibi did not comply with the first deadline. It contended that the Newfoundland Government was using the orders to dissuade it from pursuing compensation or to offset any future compensation awarded to Abitibi. As proof, counsel for Abitibi pointed to a declaration by the provincial premier that "there would not be a net payment to Abitibi." In the context of this intense dispute, the Newfoundland Government asked the Court to declare that its EPA orders were unaffected by the CCAA stay and claims procedure order under which creditors of Abitibi were required to file proofs of claim in connection with their claims against the company.

Position of the Parties

According to the Newfoundland Government, EPA orders are not the same as monetary fines because they simply require Abitibi to honour statutory obligations by carrying out work to restore the environment. As such, EPA orders are not "claims" that are subject to the claims process and stay imposed by the Court pursuant to the CCAA. Additional constitutional arguments were also made but not ultimately ruled upon.

For its part, Abitibi contended that the EPA orders were a tactical move by the Newfoundland Government, which chose to deliberately ignore the CCAA claims process. Permitting the enforcement of the EPA orders would give the Newfoundland Government an unwarranted preference over other creditors and, since it would primarily benefit confiscated land, would give the Newfoundland Government a windfall by enhancing the value of land it seized without compensation. Abitibi also argued that since the assets had been confiscated, the Newfoundland Government bore the primary responsibility for dealing with their environmental condition.

Opinion of the Court

The Court noted certain peculiarities in the environmental assessment reports prepared on behalf of the Newfoundland Government. For example, they were addressed to the lawyers representing the Newfoundland Government in the NAFTA and CCAA proceedings. Also, they failed to indicate whether the land was owned by Abitibi. Finally, they failed to account for pollution by third parties, which appeared probable for some sites. After reviewing the legal framework of the CCAA and the EPA, the Court explained that the key issue in this case was whether the EPA orders gave rise to statutory non-monetary or monetary obligations. In arriving at its decision, the Court found six considerations were particularly important.

  1. The CCAA has broad and remedial goals and clearly establishes, through recent amendments, that Courts can make appropriate orders to limit regulatory actions against a debtor, especially when monetary orders are in play (although the amendments did not directly apply in Abitibi's case, because they came into effect after the case began, the judge found the policy underlying them to be persuasive).
  2. This was not a case where the current owner of a site is asked to remedy an environmental condition with respect to ongoing operations. The Newfoundland Government, now owner of most of the sites, would be the primary monetary beneficiary of the improvements it was asking Abitibi to undertake. As such, the Newfoundland Government was acting more like a creditor than a regulator.
  3. The Newfoundland Government was targeting Abitibi specifically and not attempting the general enforcement of its statutory duties. The deadlines set in the EPA orders, and the fact that Abitibi had no legal right to access most of the sites, showed that the Newfoundland Government likely expected that Abitibi would end up having to pay compensation in lieu of complying with the orders.
  4. The facts show that the Newfoundland Government had begun requesting proposals for some of the remediation work. As a result, the EPA orders were now akin to contingent claims, which Courts routinely evaluate during CCAA proceedings.
  5. While previous decisions in which a public authority was found to be acting as a regulator rather than as a creditor, they were distinguishable from the Abitibi case. In those cases, authorities were seeking to enforce a general law and did not stand to benefit financially. Here, since Abitibi did not own most of the properties, and since it no longer carries on business in the province, the Newfoundland Government would likely have to carry out the remediation work itself and pursuant to another provision of the EPA, charge Abitibi for it. Consequently, the Newfoundland Government appeared to be acting much more like a creditor than a regulator.
  6. Finally, granting the Newfoundland Government a super-priority above all other creditors would seriously hamper the restructuring of Abitibi under the CCAA – a federal law that, under the paramountcy doctrine, cannot be overridden by provincial legislation. In particular, the Court noted that the Newfoundland Government's position was inconsistent with amendments made to the CCAA between 1992 and 2009 that provided Canadian governments with a limited priority or lien against a debtor's real property that is the subject of a claim "for costs of remedying any environmental condition or environmental damage affecting real property of the company" and only against such real property. Subsection 11.8(9) of the CCAA specifically states that such an environmental claim against a debtor company shall be a claim under the act, although this still begs the question of when is an environmental order regulatory in nature as opposed to a claim for environmental costs or otherwise monetary in nature.

For those reasons, the Court denied the Newfoundland Government's demand and stayed the EPA orders for the duration of the stay order issued by the Court under the CCAA. The Court held that the Newfoundland Government could file its environmental claims in accordance with the claims procedure order. However, seeing as the government was already out of time and all claims had been barred, the government would need to request and be granted an extension of time to do so.


Although recent amendments to the CCAA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) have clarified how courts should treat government environmental orders, the Abitibi case provides a useful example of how the struggling forestry industry in Canada is at the centre of face-offs between companies, their creditors and governments. This decision provides some helpful certainty to an important and hopefully equitable process of making the best of a sad situation. Canadian courts can be expected to analyze regulatory orders closely under both the CCAA and the BIA, to determine their true nature The key issue is whether the order is a simple statutory compliance order or a disguised monetary order.

Sections 11.1 of the CCAA and 69.6 of the BIA now provide (as of September 18, 2009) a statutory exception for regulatory action from the effect of stays under both acts. Such regulatory action includes an "investigation" and "suit or proceeding" but does not include the "enforcement of a payment ordered by the regulatory body or a court." Both statutes provide the following procedure:

(3) On application by the [company/insolvent person] and on notice to the regulatory body and to the persons who are likely to be affected by the order, the court may order that [the stay exception for regulatory action] not apply in respect of one or more of the actions, suits or proceedings taken by or before the regulatory body if in the court's opinion
(a) a viable [compromise, arrangement or proposal] could not be made in respect of the [company/ insolvent person] if that subsection were to apply; and
(b) it is not contrary to the public interest that the regulatory body be affected by the [stay] provided by [s. 11.02 of the CCAA or ss. 69 or 69.1 of the BIA].

(4) If there is a dispute as to whether a regulatory body is seeking to enforce its rights as a creditor, the court may, on application by the [company/insolvent person] and on notice to the regulatory body, make an order declaring both that the regulatory body is seeking to enforce its rights as a creditor and that the enforcement of those rights is stayed.

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.

Events from this Firm
27 Oct 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Please join members of the Blakes Commercial Real Estate group as they discuss five key provisions of a commercial real estate purchase agreement that are often the subject of much negotiation but are sometimes misunderstood.

1 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

What is the emotional culture of your organization?

Every organization and workplace has an emotional culture that can have an impact on everything from employee performance to customer or client satisfaction.

3 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Join leading lawyers from the Blakes Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation group as they discuss recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits law as well as strategies to identify and minimize common risks.

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.