Written by Xiyuan Feng In Azam v Andrews Custom Furniture Designs Inc., a recent judgement of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Court acknowledged that receiving, and, if necessary, […]
Over the past decade, large corporations and BigLaw firms have increasingly institutionalized departments with staff specifically paid to improve their equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). However, smaller, and family-run businesses are often in a position where they must work towards improving their EDI initiatives without the benefit of specifically dedicated staff.
As is well-known in the realm of Canada’s secured transaction law, both the secured party and the debtor are entitled to a number of rights and also owe certain obligations to the other party, pursuant to contract and statute. Such rights and obligations are in place for the objectives of fairness, transparency and commercial certainty, among others. The recent decision of Merchant Growth Asset Financing Ltd. v. Pyke, , shows that sometimes one party (in this case, the defaulting debtor) may attempt to diminish the rights and remedies available to the other party by erroneously asserting their own rights under the statute. Horsman J. of the Supreme Court of British Columbia was quick to shut down such an assertion in her summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff and, in doing so, created a precedent for a case that addresses the operation of creditors’ rights when the debtor attempts to recharacterize the nature of collateral after default.
The recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Petersen v Hawley, 2022 BCCA 169 provides excellent perspective on what can happen when two shareholders of a closely-held corporation come to an irreconcilable deadlock. The Court of Appeal ordered liquidation of the closely held company in this case. The decision and its underlying facts highlight that it is wise for prospective business partners to provide direction as to the resolution of future disputes by written agreement.