involved an interpretation of the CPA, PPSA, common law and
law of equity.
 I agree with the parties that paramountcy is not an issue
on this application. I would not have found a conflict in any case.
 Paramountcy ought to be narrowly construed. Historically,
Canadian courts have followed the course of restraint in holding
valid provincial laws to be inoperative under paramountcy. In the
context of co-operative federalism, paramountcy must be narrowly
construed with the effect that harmonious interpretations of federal and provincial legislation should be favoured: Saskatchewan
(Attorney General) v. Lemare Lake Logging Ltd.,  3 S.C.R.
419,  S.C.J. No. 53, 2015 SCC 53, at para. 21.
 I would not have given effect to the suggestion that Hislop
v. Canada (Attorney General) (2009), 95 O.R. (3d) 81,  O.J.
No. 1756, 2009 ONCA 354 stands for the proposition that the first
charge provided by s. 32(3) of the CPA is inherently suspect in
bankruptcy because of our constitutional framework. Hislop considered the application of s. 32(3) of the CPA where the section
conflicted with the broad prohibition against charging pension
benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8. In
that case there was actual conflict between the federal and provincial statutes because the CPA purported to provide a charge over
something which could not be charged. Dual compliance was thus
impossible, but Hislop is silent about the BIA. Hislop would not
substantially help this court determine what compliance with the
BIA would require in the context of this application.
 The BIA is capable of integrating property rights created
by provincial legislation. There is no inherent impossibility of
dual compliance. The Supreme Court has said that the BIA is
itself contingent on the provincial law of property for its
operation: Husky Oil Operations Ltd. v. M.N.R.,  3 S.C.R.
453,  S.C.J. No. 77, at para. 31. In this application, as
noted, GM, supported by FTI, itself relies upon a provincial
property right under the PPSA to secure the debt it holds as
a preferred secured creditor.
 In my view, the live conflict which I must address on this
application is the one between the PPSA and the CPA, two pieces
of provincial legislation which in this case provide different
property rights over a single fund. I will do so below.
Trillium should be adjudged bankrupt
 Currently, GM is a secured creditor of Trillium. GM holds
a security interest which has been perfected under Part III of the
PPSA. Trillium is entitled to the costs award and as a result,
pursuant to my approval of the retainer agreement, class counsel