Revive Dissolved Company to Settle Taxes

Summary#

This is a private bill to bring back (revive) a dissolved Ontario company, R&J Drago Consultants Inc. The company was dissolved in 1996. The stated purpose is to let the applicant deal with outstanding tax matters tied to the company. The bill’s goal is to restore the company’s legal status so it can handle its property and obligations.

• Revives R&J Drago Consultants Inc. as if it had never been dissolved.
• Restores all its property, rights, and privileges, and also all its debts, contracts, and other liabilities.
• Protects anyone who gained rights after the company was dissolved (their rights are not disturbed).
• Starts on the day it receives Royal Assent (becomes law).

What it means for you#

• R&J Drago Consultants Inc., its directors and shareholders

  • The company legally exists again and can act in its own name (for example, file tax returns, sign documents, and manage property).
  • It is responsible again for any debts and obligations it had at the time it was dissolved.

• Creditors and tax authorities

  • You can deal directly with the company to resolve outstanding amounts or claims tied to the period before dissolution.
  • Rights you gained after the company was dissolved are preserved.

• General public

  • No direct change. This bill affects a single company and related parties.

• Terms explained

  • “Dissolved” means the company was formally ended and removed from the registry.
  • “Revived” means it is brought back as a legal entity.
  • “Royal Assent” is when the bill is signed into law.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill text does not create any new government program or funding.
• Any costs to resolve taxes or debts would likely be private costs for the company, not the province.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to let the company resolve outstanding tax matters that require the company to exist again.
• Revival gives the company legal capacity to settle debts, file or amend returns, and manage any remaining property or records.
• Restoring the company “as if not dissolved,” while protecting third-party rights gained since 1996, could be seen as a balanced way to address old obligations without harming others.
• This could improve clarity for tax administration and any lingering creditor issues.

Opponents' View#

• The bill does not explain the nature or size of the “outstanding tax matters,” so the scope and impact are unclear.
• Reviving a company long after dissolution may raise practical questions about records, notice to interested parties, and how old claims will be handled.
• Restoring all past liabilities and contracts “as if never dissolved” could create uncertainty about which historical obligations still matter today, even with the protection for rights gained after dissolution.
• The bill sets no reporting or time limits, so it is unclear how long the revived status will be needed or maintained.