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
26 Oct 2018, Other, Vancouver, Canada

Cybersecurity, including data privacy and security obligations, has become a critical chapter in every company’s risk management playbook.

30 Oct 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Please join us for discussions on recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits as well as employment law issues.

12 Nov 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Stories aren’t falsehoods. Stories are the root of all effective human communications: they motivate, animate and clarify. If you aren’t telling stories, you probably aren’t getting your point across.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
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
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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