is entitled to receive as fees both the costs award plus 20 per cent
of the judgment amount and interest pursuant to the provisions
of the CPA.
 As noted, the approval of the retainer agreement was done
on a without prejudice basis GM to argue the issue of priority.
Counsel agreed with this method of proceeding.
 It is my view that it is immaterial whether I decide the
bankruptcy issue before or after I decide the issues regarding
entitlement to the costs award. Since GM and FTI concede that
there is no paramountcy issue, the scheme of distribution under
s. 136(1) of the BIA will not be disturbed in any case. It would not
constitute a preference if Trillium ultimately succeeds on the
priority issue; rather, the task for this court is to determine the
nature of the provincial rights upon which the BIA shall be superimposed.
 I will first start with the issue of bankruptcy.
 In my view, GM is entitled to an order adjudging Trillium
bankrupt. Trillium closed its dealership in June 2009. It has no
ongoing operations. Its only assets appear to the honourarium
that I previously awarded, its share of the damages award, and
potentially the costs award, which I will discuss below.
 There is no question that Trillium’s debts far outweigh its
 In these circumstances s. 42(1)(j) of the BIA is met and
there has been an act of bankruptcy. I am satisfied that Trillium
has ceased to meet its liabilities generally as they become due: see
Ryan (Re),  O.J. No. 4521, 50 C.B.R. (3d) 60 (Gen. Div.), affd
 O.J. No. 3753, 9 C.B.R. (4th) 107 (C.A.).
 Although not dealt with in its factum, Trillium argues that
a bankruptcy order is unnecessary since class counsel can distribute the funds as part of the administration of the class action
settlement. I disagree. In my view, since Trillium has failed to
meet its liabilities and there is evidence of significant debt,
a bankruptcy order is warranted following the act of bankruptcy.
Trillium’s creditors are entitled to bring such an application under
s. 43(1) of the BIA and I would not interfere with that entitlement.
 In these circumstances an interim receiver is not necessary.
 While GM proposed that FTI be appointed interim
receiver it made no submissions as to the identity of the trustee in
 Trillium opposed FTI being appointed as interim
receiver on the basis that it took a partisan position at the
application and, as a result, lacks the necessary partiality to
act in this matter.