Once the lender and debtor have achieved a mutually acceptable plan or approach, the more specific terms of leniency can be addressed. While the nature and extent of the terms of leniency can only be limited by the imagination of the parties, most agreements include: The just doctrine that when a person enters into an agreement or property order in circumstances that imply that that person has not been allowed to exercise a free and deliberate decision on the case, the Court of Justice will put the agreement out of the question. You are not a part of an act, agreement or transaction, but you may have rights or duties inside or inside. As part of a leniency agreement, a lender may issue a letter of formal notice and a letter of intent to enforce security in accordance with Section 244 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (“BIA”). The 10-day notice before the warranty is applied for the duration of the leniency contract, provided for by Section 244 of the BIA, may thus be cancelled or expired. If an leniency event occurs, the lender would then be able to immediately ensure its security. Parties trying to negotiate leniency terms should be able to define their respective objectives or objectives and agree on specific timelines to achieve those objectives or objectives. Depending on the nature of the debtor`s financial difficulties, the approach can be as simple as implementing cost reductions that may allow the debtor to meet its obligations. It may include locating and using additional working capital or finding a new lender. Sometimes it is a matter of getting the debtor into a sale process (in whole or in part) for the business, in the hope of paying the lender.
Delivery by one party and receipt of a sum of money by another party by appointment, neither express nor tacit, to repay it with or without interest.  See the definition of “leniency” in Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition (2009: West, a Thomson Business) p. 717 A leniency agreement may contain a large number of terms, including, but not limited to,: to: to the extent that additional loans are granted after the new guarantee is made available or if there is sufficient evidence to prove that the guarantee has been granted to enable the debtor to continue his activities , the lender is in a strong enough position to rebut the presumptions under the preferential BIA and provincial rules.  Although the existing debt is not a valid consideration, there is some jurisprudence to support the notion of genuine leniency as a good consideration for the granting of additional guarantees.  In practice, and particularly when the appeal is brought within the framework of national preferences legislation, the courts have insisted that there be further financial progress before the new security can overcome a preferential challenge.  In the 2012 ONCA 765 (CanLII) Harry Snoek Limited Partnership (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to accept the argument that the terms of the restructuring of the payment terms, including lower interest rates, extended time limit and willingness to lenient, were sufficient consideration to deal with the trust company`s preferential challenge without a financial advance. What would happen if the existing unsecured debt amounted to $100,000.00 and an additional $50,000.00 tariff was advanced as a precondition for the new guarantee, would that be a sufficient “value” to avoid a successful, defenceless preferential challenge? There is case law that supports an argument that the existing portion of the debt should remain unsecured, despite the additional advance granted at the time the new guarantee was granted.  The reasons for the decision are somewhat obscure with respect to the leniency agreement and its specific conditions, but the Tribunal appears to have taken the position that the leniency period, given that the leniency period had already expired before the credit union began to apply the guarantee, was not relevant to the issues relating to the