True Lease v. Security Lease – Is The Distinction Still Relevant? (Part 2)

Introduction

In "True Lease v. Security Lease – Is the Distinction Still Relevant?" which appeared in the June 2008 issue of Collateral Matters, Jill Fraser discussed a 2007 amendment to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the "PPSA") and whether or not the distinction between a true lease and a security lease was still relevant in light of that amendment.

That issue is one that continues to preoccupy the courts.

Enforcement of Security

In her article, Jill reviewed a 2007 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, DaimlerChrysler Services Canada Inc. v. Cameron, 2007 BCCA 144 (CanLII) ("Cameron") which involved a situation in which the distinction continued to be relevant, namely, application of the provisions governing enforcement of security agreements in the Personal Property Security Act (British Columbia). That decision is applicable in Ontario because Part V of the PPSA (Default – Rights and Remedies) applies to a security interest