Restore Dissolved Company for Continued Business

Summary#

This is a private bill to bring back a dissolved Ontario corporation, Avant Assets Inc. It would restore the company as if it had never been dissolved, so it can carry on business again. The stated goal is to let the former owner continue business under the same corporate name and legal status.

• Revives Avant Assets Inc. that was voluntarily dissolved on March 22, 2024.
• Restores all of the company’s property, rights, and privileges.
• Also restores all liabilities, contracts, and debts (the company again owes what it owed).
• Protects any rights other people gained after the dissolution (those rights are not undone).
• Takes effect on the day it receives Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

• Avant Assets Inc. and its owner

  • The company would exist again in law and could operate, sign contracts, own assets, and sue or be sued.
  • It would be treated as if it was never dissolved, starting from the original dissolution date.
  • Past obligations, debts, and contracts would come back into force.

• Creditors and business partners

  • Contracts and debts that existed at dissolution would be restored and enforceable against the company.
  • You could resume dealing with the company under its revived legal status.

• People who gained rights after the dissolution

  • If you acquired rights related to the company or its property after March 22, 2024, those rights are protected by the bill.

• General public

  • There is no direct impact for most people. This bill mainly affects the company and those who deal with it.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill does not create any new fees, fines, or spending in the text provided.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to let the former owner continue business without creating a new corporation.
• Restoring the company “as if not dissolved” could help resolve contracts, property holdings, and bank or tax matters that were left in limbo.
• It could reduce confusion for customers and counterparties by keeping the same corporate identity and history.
• Protecting third-party rights gained after dissolution helps avoid unfair effects on others.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is legal complexity from the retroactive restoration: actions taken while the company was dissolved may be harder to sort out, even with the protection for third-party rights.
• The bill is very narrow and benefits a single corporation; it does not explain why administrative options (if any) were not used.
• It is unclear how government agencies, banks, or registries will handle filings and records from the period when the company was dissolved.
• The bill does not set conditions, timelines, or oversight for the revived company’s compliance with past obligations (for example, outstanding filings or taxes), which may raise implementation questions.