Reedman Law Acts as Lead Appellate Counsel at the Supreme Court of Canada in Piekut v. Canada (National Revenue), 2025 SCC 13

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Piekut v. Canada (National Revenue), a significant case on the timing of student loan debt in insolvency proceedings.

Cody Reedman of Reedman Law acted as lead appellate counsel for the appellant in her challenge of the interpretation of section 178(1)(g)(ii) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The case asked a question: When does a person “cease to be a full- or part-time student” for the purpose of releasing student loan debt through bankruptcy or a consumer proposal?

At issue was the tension between a “single-date” approach, used by courts in British Columbia and Quebec, and a “multiple-date” approach, which were previously adopted in other provinces.

Although the majority of the Court upheld the single-date approach, the dissenting opinion (Karakatsanis, Martin, and Moreau JJ.) adopted a middle-ground position. They emphasized a conditional statutory bar: that student loan debts should be dischargeable after a continuous seven-year period out of school, which offered a reading that emphasized the fresh start principal. The majority also confirmed that a creditor does not require a court order to enforce a student loan claim post-consumer proposal, or post-bankruptcy, confirming the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy's policy position. Further commentary will be shared in the coming days. Following this decision, the “single-date” approach may encourage more debtors to seek support through student loan programs such as the Repayment Assistance Plan. However, it remains important to note that courts retain discretion under section 178(1.1) of the BIA to grant an order that s. 178(1)(g) no longer applies to the government student loans at issue after five years from the debtor’s study end date. To qualify, the applicant must demonstrate to the court that they acted in good faith with respect to their student loans and that they have and will continue to experience financial hardship arising from those loans. This decision underscores the continuing complexity of student debt in insolvency law and reflects the policy and legislative values that intersect with financial rehabilitation in insolvency proceedings. We are proud to have played a central role in shaping this national conversation and assisting to provide clarity in the law in an area that would otherwise not receive appellant attention.