In an illustration of the Superior Court of Quebec’s flexibility under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”), Justice Chantal Corriveau issued an exceptional order authorizing two priority charges in the matter of Société en commandite FF Soucy WB.¹ The judgment, rendered on January 23, 2026, highlights the Court’s willingness to intervene decisively when the rights of a critical supplier intersect with environmental protection and the public interest.

A critical supplier and an environmental risk

The debtor, Société en commandite FF Soucy WB, operated a large industrial complex in Rivière‑du‑Loup. The complex involved nuclear reactors and reservoirs of industrial ink, both reliant on electrically powered continuous water‑pumping systems to prevent leakage.

After its appointment on December 23, 2025, trustee Raymond Chabot inc. (the “Trustee”) faced a situation of exceptional urgency. Hydro‑Québec, the debtor’s electrical supplier, was owed approximately $8 million and had indicated that service would cease after January 23, 2026, unless it was provided with a priority charge on the debtor’s property. The Court was advised that an abrupt interruption of electrical service would lead to a catastrophic environmental event, sending nuclear energy and ink into the Rivière‑du‑Loup and ultimately the St. Lawrence River.

A safe shutdown of the facility during the winter would cost roughly $8 million, and was therefore not a financially viable option, given the debtor’s limited cash.

Despite significant cost‑cutting measures, the minimum operational load still required approximately $10,000 per day of electricity. The Trustee therefore sought immediate judicial authorization for a charge on the debtor’s property in favour of Hydro‑Québec to secure ongoing service, as well as a charge securing the professional fees of the Trustee.

Governmental authorities, while not opposing the relief, insisted on a $10,000 reserve each to protect potential deemed trust claims, emphasizing that their consent should not be interpreted as agreement that such priority charges are generally available under the BIA.

A decisive judicial response

In its analysis, the Court acknowledged that the circumstances and the requested order were both extraordinary, and that it did have the power to grant the requested order, in view of:

• s. 31 BIA, which allows the Court to authorize a trustee to incur obligations, borrow money and give security on the debtor’s property in any amount, on any terms and on any property, repayable in priority to the creditors’ claims;
• s. 183(1.1) BIA, which invests the Superior Court with the jurisdiction to exercise original, auxiliary and ancillary jurisdiction in bankruptcy and in other proceedings authorized by the BIA;
• the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General),² in which that Court emphasized the  trend towards harmonizing the BIA and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”)³, in which court-ordered charges are commonplace; and
• the decision of Syndic de Chronométriq inc.⁴, in which the Quebec Court of Appeal held that the Court’s power to order the creation of priming charges under the BIA is justified by its inherent jurisdiction (which is what was relied upon under the CCAA prior to specific charging provisions being included in that act) and that “as pragmatic problem solvers, they could exercise their inherent jurisdiction to effect a remedy or fill statutory gaps…sparingly and with caution because of its broad and loosely defined nature”.

The Court also considered that:

• a sale process was underway, that could result in a sale of the business as a going concern;
• the absence of contestation (noting that the consent of the tax authorities in this situation should not be construed as an admission that such charges could be granted in a different case);
• the particular circumstances, involving the threat of an environmental catastrophe; and
• that the professionals were prepared to wait until the results of the sale process before getting paid.

Justice Corriveau ultimately granted the Trustee’s application and ordered a $550,000 charge for professional fees of the Trustee and its lawyers (the “RCI Charge”) and a $1.9 million charge in favour of Hydro‑Québec, securing the continued provision of electricity to maintain essential operations (the “HQ Charge”). The RCI Charge ranked above the HQ charge, and both charges on the debtor’s property ranked above all other claims, but below a maximum of $10,000 of any existing deemed trusts in favour of each of the federal or provincial governments.

This judgment demonstrates the Court’s readiness to make exceptional orders when human safety and environmental protection are at risk. It reinforces the flexibility and inherent jurisdiction embedded in the BIA and the ability for trustees to obtain the Court’s assistance promptly when facing unconventional threats to asset value and public welfare.

¹ Syndic de Société en commandite FF Soucy WB, 2026 QCCS 159.

² 2010 SCC 60 at para. 24.

³ RSC 1985, c C-36.

⁴ 2023 QCCA 1295 at paras. 46 and 54-58.