- with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Healthcare and Law Firm industries
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
Introduction
What can be learned from the 2025 Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) filing data?
There were 71 CCAA filings in 2025, representing a 4.2% year-over-year decrease. While filings effectively remained at the same level as 2024, the 2025 total of 71 proceedings represents an 82% increase from the recent low point of 2022.
Against that backdrop, several practical themes emerge for debtor corporations, and creditors, planning and executing restructurings in 2026:
- 2025 rewarded speed. 33 proceedings progressed from initial order to a material transaction approval, plan approval, or termination order in an average of 3.78 months.
- Non-plan transactions remained dominant, representing 83% of completed restructurings.
- Sale and investment solicitation processes (“SISPs”) were frequently approved very early in a proceeding (sometimes with remarkable effect as described below). When sought, SISPs were approved 24 days after the initial order on average.
- Reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) continue to be commonplace, with 18 RVO transactions receiving court approval.
- Courts are closely scrutinizing the evidentiary basis for RVO transactions and director and officer (“D&O”) releases.
2025 by the numbers
Miller Thomson’s 2025 CCAA tracking spreadsheet can be found here. 1
Of the 71 CCAA filings in 2025:
- Ontario remained the busiest forum by filing count (23), followed by Québec (16), Alberta (12), and British Columbia (11).
- The most prominent industries were real estate/construction (12), manufacturing/industrial (9), oil & gas / mining (7), retail/consumer (7), cannabis (7), and technology (5).
- Average liabilities were C$176.06mn (from a range of $8.4mn to $3.26b).
- Cross-border proceedings occurred in 19% of filings and most prominently in the manufacturing industry (5).
- 72% of filings required an interim financing facility. The average debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) loan was $7.46mn. Interim financing ranged from $300K at the low end to $66.41mn at the high end.
- 51 filings proceeded by a SISP of which 18 resulted in transactions effected through an RVO.
- Less than 11% of completed restructurings concluded with plan of arrangement.
- Auctions remained uncommon, being utilized in less than 10% of filings.
- Professional mandates were as follows:
| Applicant Counsel2 | Monitor | Monitor Counsel |
|---|---|---|
| Stikeman Elliott LLP (7) | KSV (9) | McCarthy Tétrault LLP (7) |
| Miller Thomson LLP (6) | Grant Thornton (8) | Bennett Jones LLP (5) |
| O’Keefe & Sullivan Lawyers (6) | FTI (7) | Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP (5) |
| McCarthy Tétrault LLP (5) | PWC (7) | Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (5) |
| Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP (5) | A&M (7) | Stikeman Elliott LLP (5) |
| Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP (5) | EY (6) | Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP (4) |
| Reconstruct LLP (5) | Raymond Chabot (5) | Goodmans LLP (4) |
| Bennett Jones LLP (4) | BDO (4) | Stewart McKelvey (4) |
| Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (3) | MNP (4) | Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP (3) |
| Other (25) | Other (14) | Other (29) |
Column 1 indicates the Applicant Counsel for professional mandates, column 2 indicates the Monitor and column 3 indicates the Monitor Counsel.
Preliminary takeaways
We note the following trends to be aware of, which we will be following in 2026:
- Extreme speed is possible. In SRx Health Solutions (Canada) Inc., a pre-arranged SISP was approved by the initial order, and the first sale was approved within 9 days of the initial order. In Québec, Groupe LAR Inc. moved from SISP order to transaction approval in just 7 days. In cases that achieved a rapid conclusion, the filed materials illustrate how extensive pre-planning and creativity laid the foundation for success. Applicants arrived at the initial order hearing with SISP materials ready and often sought SISP approval on the comeback; and DIP term sheet restructuring milestones were aggressive.
- RVOs remain commonplace but face increasing scrutiny. Practitioners should expect that in 2026, courts may push back on the RVO structure being regarded as routine or the norm. The Harte Gold test must be made out with clear evidence. Conclusory statements on the appropriateness of the structure are insufficient, and counsel should be prepared to answer the question: why not proceed by a plan of arrangement instead?
- Do not treat broad D&O releases as a forgone conclusion. Courts continue to show that they will grant robust releases when the record supports necessity and fairness. On one hand, courts are increasingly wary of boilerplates and post‑closing attempts to widen protection unrelated to what the restructuring required. On the other hand, courts remain open to releases that are necessary to implement transactions that enhance overall recovery or preserve value.
If you would like to discuss how these trends may affect a specific file or upcoming mandate, please contact a member of our Restructuring and Insolvency team. We can help you assess options, structure processes that align with current court expectations, and position your stakeholders for the best possible outcome in 2026 and beyond.
Footnotes
1. The information provided herein is intended for reference purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data presented, no representations are made regarding the completeness or accuracy the information. Users are encouraged to independently verify the information contained herein.
2. Includes creditor-led filings; i.e. not synonymous with “debtor counsel”.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]