Summary#
The Sur-Leen Farms Limited Act, 2025 is a special Ontario law that revives Sur-Leen Farms Limited; it does not amend another Act. Its stated goal is to let the applicant deal with property that was held in the corporation’s name when it was dissolved.
- The corporation was dissolved on December 10, 1994, for failing to comply with the Corporations Information Act, according to the bill’s preamble.
- The Act restores the corporation’s legal position, including its property, rights, privileges and franchises, as if it had not been dissolved.
- It also restores the corporation’s liabilities, contracts, disabilities and debts.
- Restoration is subject to rights that any person acquired after the corporation’s dissolution.
- The Act took effect on Royal Assent. It has received Royal Assent, but the date is not provided in the available material.
What it means for you#
- Sur-Leen Farms Limited: The corporation is revived and restored to its legal position as of its dissolution, with the listed rights and liabilities.
- The applicant: The preamble says she applied to revive the corporation so she could deal with property held in its name. The Act does not give that property directly to her personally.
- People who acquired rights after the dissolution: Those rights are protected by the Act.
- Creditors and parties to contracts: The corporation’s debts and contracts are restored along with its other legal position.
- General public: The Act does not create a new public service, benefit, fee or penalty.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The Act does not state a public spending amount, fee, or cost estimate.
- It restores the corporation’s debts and other liabilities, but the amount of any debts is not provided.
What is unclear#
- What property the corporation held when it was dissolved, and what the applicant intends to do with it.
- Whether the corporation has debts, contracts or other liabilities, and their amounts.
- What rights other people acquired after the dissolution; the Act protects those rights but does not identify them.
- The date on which the Act received Royal Assent.
- The preamble says the applicant represented that the reporting default was inadvertent and that she was the sole director, officer and shareholder when the corporation was dissolved. The supplied material does not provide further details about those claims.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the Act is that reviving the corporation gives the applicant a way to deal with property that remained in the corporation’s name.
- Restoring the corporation’s legal position also restores its liabilities and contracts, rather than restoring only its property or rights.
- The Act expressly protects rights acquired by others after the dissolution.
Case against#
- The Act restores the corporation’s full legal position, including debts and contracts, but the available material does not say what those obligations are.
- It is unclear what property is involved or how revival will affect particular people with interests connected to it.
- The Act states that later-acquired rights are protected, but the available material does not identify those rights or explain how any dispute about them would be handled.