As I see it, this is a case in which the director of the bankrupt corporation may have been misled (if in fact a mistake was made as regards the possibility of an election under the Act, which I do not have to decide here) by his professional adviser, which is something for which the appellant cannot be held liable. As stated by Robertson J.A. in Soper v. The Queen, 1997 CanLII 6352 (FCA), [1998] 1 F.C. 124, [1997] F.C.J. 881, at paragraph 53, the positive duty to act arises where a director obtains information, or becomes aware of facts, which might lead one to conclude that there is a problem with remittances. Although that comment was made in discussing the liability of an outside director, I think that it also applies where an inside director could not reasonably be expected to have doubted the possibly mistaken advice given by his or her professional adviser.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.