Jordan Schultz

In a receivership proceeding, the Receiver brought a motion for declaratory relief regarding amounts owed under a loan and mortgage by the respondents.

The respondents brought a cross-motion arguing the Receiver's claim was barred by the two-year limitation period under the British Columbia Limitation Act.

The court found that while the respondents had not acknowledged liability to extend the limitation period, a prior petition commenced by the respondents in British Columbia within the limitation period preserved the claim.

The court held the Receiver's motion was not statute-barred and could proceed to be determined on its merits.

Rytec Corporation sought an order declaring that the automatic stay of proceedings under s. 69(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) did not apply to a motion it intended to bring for injunctive relief against Emergency Door Service Inc. (EDS) to prevent post-filing conduct.

EDS had filed a notice of intention to make a proposal under the BIA.

The court dismissed Rytec's motion, holding that the term "remedy" in s. 69(1)(a) of the BIA includes injunctive proceedings to prevent post-filing conduct of a debtor who has filed a notice of intention to make a proposal.

The court emphasized a purposive interpretation of the BIA, aiming to provide breathing room for debtors to restructure, and found no material prejudice to Rytec that would warrant lifting the stay.