Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 33
Sort by relevance | Sorted by date: newest first / oldest first

Industry committee  The minister indeed has full discretion under the act to apply the factors in section 20 and normally the courts would not review that decision; however, the minister also has to follow the process that is described in the act, including the factors in section 20, the information

February 17th, 2011Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Industry committee  FIRA indeed was a more severe piece of legislation. For example, right now we have the net benefit test. At the time under FIRA, we had to have some substantial benefit, which meant that the bar was much higher. Also, pretty much all transactions were reviewed at the time. So if

February 17th, 2011Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  Thank you. The judge also said that the mechanics association had not proved that Air Canada was not in compliance with its obligations. The judge also said that it was possible for Air Canada to indeed operate maintenance and overhaul generally speaking through its own operatio

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  I think it's possible for Air Canada to be in compliance even if Aveos has disappeared, and I think the judge has left that door open.

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  NAFTA was passed subsequent to the legislation we're talking about, in 1988. The legislation is valid under NAFTA, but its application obviously continues to this day. I'm not here to provide additional legal opinion to this committee. I'm here to explain the opinion and what I

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  The Department of Justice has been asked to provide an opinion to our client, Transport Canada, on the applicability of the ACPPA to this case. We've looked at it, and we've provided the opinion that is in front of you today. The requirement in the act, as you've read yourself,

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  Our opinion is in front of you. We've said that Air Canada was in compliance with the ACPPA. That is included in the opinion. The enforcement of the articles of Air Canada is left to the Canada Business Corporations Act. It's normally up to the shareholders and creditors and othe

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  I think it rests with our elected officials to decide what to do with the opinion.

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  What I wrote is that for a number of reasons our chances of success would be low. That's what I wrote.

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  A complainant can do so. A creditor can do so. A complainant can be a shareholder or a former shareholder. It could be the director of the corporation or anybody authorized by the court.

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  They could try it. They could go to the court and ask that they be recognized as having standing. Whether the court would accept this would be up to the court's discretion.

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  I have not seen the opinion and I cannot speculate on what they could or could not do. But any party can, under the CBCA, address the court and ask that they be recognized as having standing.

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

Transport committee  Possibly they could do so.

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault

March 29th, 2012Committee meeting

Pierre Legault