two amounts now total $3,072,831.50 plus applicable interest
(collectively, the “costs award”).
 This costs award has now been satisfied and it is being held
in trust pending the outcome of this dispute.
 In my earlier endorsement dated December 5, 2018, I
approved the retainer agreement between class counsel and
Trillium pursuant to s. 32(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992,
S.O. 1992, c. 6 (“CPA”). In that decision I approved the assignment of the costs award from Trillium to class counsel. As
noted in the endorsement I did so without prejudice to GM’s right
to argue that the costs ought to be paid to it as opposed to
Trillium or class counsel.
 As a result of my decision at trial and the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal, Trillium owes costs to GM in the
amount of $4,828,005.32. This is an unsecured debt.
 GM subsequently entered into an agreement with the Business Development Bank of Canada (“BDC”) whereby GM
obtained a secured debt BDC held with respect to Trillium. As
a result, Trillium also owes $2,797,681.71 to GM on a secured
basis. Trillium also has other known debts including money owed
to the Canada Revenue Agency on account of unpaid GST/HST of
approximately $220,000 plus interest.
 GM, as a secured creditor, now seeks to put Trillium
into bankruptcy and collect the costs award in priority to class
 Essentially, GM, supported by FTI, submits that the costs
award is the property of Trillium and the provisions of the Ontario
Personal Property Security Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.10 (“PPSA”),
provide that GM should have priority over Trillium’s assets in
a bankruptcy, including as against class counsel.
 The application raises four issues and I will deal with each
There is no active paramountcy issue between the CPA and the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (“BIA”)?
 This issue was raised in the parties’ facta, which caused
me some concern since GM did not serve the federal and provincial
Attorneys General with a Notice of Constitutional Question. GM
in its reply factum, however, clarified its position and conceded
that there was no conflict between the BIA and CPA.
 Further, at the application, the parties agreed that there
was no issue of paramountcy and that essentially the dispute