Timothy C. Hogan

The appellant, Paccar Leasing Company Ltd., appealed a motion judge's order that Royal Bank of Canada's perfected security interest in a debtor's property prevailed over Paccar's unperfected security interest in leased commercial trucks.

Paccar argued that its "true lease" meant it retained title, giving it priority.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the 2007 amendments to the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) prioritize perfected security interests over common law notions of title, even for true leases, if the lessor fails to perfect their interest.

The Receiver sought approval of its activities, fees, and a determination of priority over three leased trucks.

The dispute was between the senior lender, RBC, which held a perfected general security agreement, and Paccar, which leased the trucks to the debtor but failed to perfect its security interest.

Paccar argued that as a 'true' lessor, it retained ownership and was exempt from the enforcement provisions of the Personal Property Security Act.

The court held that the 2007 amendments to the PPSA brought true leases of more than one year into the registration system.

Because Paccar failed to perfect its interest, it was subordinate to RBC's perfected security interest.

The court ordered Paccar to return the truck in its possession to the Receiver.

The court approved the sale of real property by the Receiver but reserved decision on the Receiver's and its counsel's fees.

The Debtor sought a 50% reduction in fees.

The court applied factors from Re Bakemates International Inc. to assess fairness and reasonableness.

While the Receiver's and counsel's fees to January 2020 were deemed reasonable, the estimated additional fees to close the file were reduced from $16,950 to $10,000 due to the Receiver's initial motion record lacking sufficient evidence for the property sale approval.

The court-appointed Receiver sought approval of its first report and authorization to file an assignment in bankruptcy on behalf of the debtor, a farmer.

The debtor opposed the assignment, arguing he was protected as a farmer under section 48 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the debtor ceased to be a farmer upon the appointment of the Receiver and authorized the Receiver to file the assignment in bankruptcy due to the debtor's lack of cooperation and misrepresentations.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer their action from London (Southwest Region) to the Toronto Region, which the plaintiff opposed.

The court, acting as a designate for the Regional Senior Judge, applied the holistic factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Considering that the defendants and their businesses were located in Toronto, the court found that the interests of justice required the transfer.

However, due to a pending summary judgment motion, the action was ordered to remain in London for that specific hearing before being transferred to Toronto for any remaining issues.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the summary judgment motion judge.

This corrigendum amends a previous decision regarding the proposal of Innovative Coating Systems Inc. The original decision did not approve the proposal but granted leave for the debtor to file an amended proposal within ten days, specifically removing a deemed release clause.

It also adds a sentence concerning the trustee's costs.