|
''Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc'' is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with whether an obligation incurred under regulatory action constitutes a claim under the ''Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act'', thus becoming subject to a stay of proceedings. ==Background== AbitibiBowater, a pulp and paper manufacturer, operated throughout the province of Newfoundland for over a century. The company closed its paper mill in Stephenville, Newfoundland in 2005, and, in 2008, it announced that its last operating mill, located in Grand Falls-Windsor, would close in March 2009. This marked the end of the company’s active operations in the province. However, Abitibi still retained numerous property rights, assets, and undertakings within Newfoundland amounting to well over $300 million. This included interests in hydroelectric facilities, surface rights, and paper mills. The company closed its paper mill in Stephenville, Newfoundland in 2005, and announced in 2008 that it would also close its plant in Grand Falls-Windsor. The Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly promptly passed legislation expropriating AbitibiBowater's assets in the province.〔(''Abitibi-Consolidated Rights and Assets Act'' ), SNL2008, C. A-1.01〕 This included the cancellation of “water and hydroelectric contracts and agreements” between the province and Abitibi, the cancellation of ongoing legal proceedings Abitibi had against the province, and the blocking of access to Newfoundland’s courts by Abitibi. The government later learned it had accidentally expropriated the former mill property in central Newfoundland and its environmental liabilities as well.The province issued remediation orders against Abitibi under the ''Environmental Protection Act'',〔(''Environmental Protection Act'' ), SNL2002, C. E-14.2〕 compelling Abitibi to clean up various sites, many of them expropriated under the Abitibi Act. Abitibi had to submit a remediation plan by January 15, 2010 and the cleanup or “remediation actions” were to be completed by January 15, 2011. Before the EPA orders were issued, Abitibi filed for protection from its creditors under the ''Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act'' (“''CCAA''”), and an initial stay order and subsequent extension order were both granted by the court. The extension order included an amendment to the initial stay order stating that the stay order would not apply to government regulatory orders. Newfoundland argued that the EPA orders were non-monetary, and thus were not within the scope of the creditor claims process under the ''CCAA''. It also sought a declaration that a court did not have the constitutional competence under ''CCAA'' proceedings to fetter the discretion of a Minister of a provincial Crown under a law validly enacted by that province. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|