Summary#
The Ludger Michel Estates Limited Act, 2025 is a standalone Ontario Act; it does not amend the Business Corporations Act. It revives Ludger Michel Estates Limited, which the bill says was dissolved on March 24, 2021. Its stated goal is to let the company collect certain money said to be owed to it.
- The company is restored to its legal position as of the date it was dissolved, as if it had not been dissolved.
- That restoration includes its property, rights, privileges and franchises, and also its liabilities, contracts, disabilities and debts.
- The restoration is subject to rights any person acquired after the company was dissolved.
- The Act took effect on Royal Assent; the supplied material does not give the date of Royal Assent.
What it means for you#
- Ludger Michel Estates Limited: The company is revived and its former legal position is restored, subject to rights acquired by others after dissolution.
- People or organizations with rights acquired after dissolution: Those rights are expressly preserved. The Act does not explain how any dispute about such rights would be decided.
- Creditors and parties to the company’s contracts: The company’s debts, liabilities and contracts are restored along with its assets and rights.
- General public: The Act does not create a general benefit, tax, fee or new public service.
Money#
No publicly available information on the cost of the Act or the amount of money the company seeks to collect.
- The Act does not set out an appropriation, fee or penalty.
- It does not name the money owed, the amount, or who owes it.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not identify the money the company seeks to collect or explain how it would collect it.
- It does not set out a process for notifying affected people, resolving disputes or reviewing claims.
- It does not explain how the restored company’s rights and obligations interact with any rights acquired by others after dissolution, beyond saying those acquired rights are preserved.
- The supplied material does not give a Royal Assent date.
Case for#
- The bill’s stated reason is that the former director wants to revive the company to collect money said to be owed to it.
- Restoring the company’s former legal position could allow it to pursue that money without treating the company as newly formed.
- The Act preserves rights acquired by others after dissolution, placing an express limit on the restoration.
Case against#
- Revival restores debts, liabilities and contracts as well as property and rights. The change is not limited to collecting money.
- The bill does not identify the claims or amounts involved, so readers cannot assess the scale or who may be affected.
- The bill provides no notice or dispute process for people who may be affected by the restored company’s legal position.