This private Act restores Honey Harbour Community Church Inc. to life after an administrative dissolution, placing the corporation back into the legal position it occupied on the date it was dissolved. The revival explicitly brings back the corporation’s property, rights, privileges and franchises and also revives its liabilities and debts.
For practitioners, the law matters because it creates a retroactive legal fiction: transactions and claims that existed at the time of dissolution may be revived, while third‑party rights acquired after dissolution are preserved. That mix creates immediate issues for property titles, creditors, insurers and anyone who dealt with the corporation while it was dissolved.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act revives the corporation and restores it to the legal position it held on the dissolution date, including property, contracts and liabilities, but excludes rights that third parties acquired after dissolution. It takes effect on Royal Assent.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the church's governing board and members, pre‑dissolution creditors and contract counterparties, third parties who transacted with the defunct entity after dissolution, insurers and provincial registries that hold title or corporate records.
Why It Matters
This is a legislative route to undo a corporate dissolution — a private remedy that reintroduces potentially dormant claims while preserving post‑dissolution third‑party entitlements. Lawyers, registrars and municipal authorities will need to reconcile revived legal status against transactions that occurred during the corporation’s dormancy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act is a short, targeted private statute: it begins with a Preamble describing an application by a board member and records that the corporation was dissolved for failure to comply with corporate information requirements, but that activities continued in its name. The core operative provision declares the corporation revived and restores its legal position "as of the date of its dissolution." That restoration expressly includes property, rights, privileges and franchises and likewise restores liabilities, contracts, disabilities and debts.
Crucially, the revival is not absolute: the Act preserves any rights that a person acquired after the corporation’s dissolution. That carve‑out protects third parties who relied on the dissolution and who obtained rights or property interests during the intervening period, while still allowing the resurrected corporation and its pre‑dissolution creditors to assert claims and interests that existed at the dissolution date.The Act comes into force on Royal Assent, which means the revival occurs by statute from that date but operates to recreate the corporation’s legal status retroactively to the dissolution date.
Practically, the revived corporation will need to update provincial corporate records, revisit contracts entered before dissolution, and assess which liabilities were dormant but now actionable. Third parties who acquired interests during the dissolution window should confirm whether their positions are protected under the Act’s carve‑out, and insurers should review coverage questions for acts taken while the corporation was dissolved.Because the statute is a private remedy enacted by the Legislature rather than an administrative revival under corporate statute or court order, it creates discrete legal consequences: it can reopen time‑barred claims that existed at dissolution, alter property title questions, and prompt disputes about what counts as a protected post‑dissolution acquisition.
Those practical frictions are where most compliance and litigation risk will arise.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The applicant who sought the special legislation is Allan Hazelton, who represents himself as a board member of the corporation.
Honey Harbour Community Church Inc. was dissolved on July 23, 1994 for failure to comply with the Corporations Information Act.
The Act restores the corporation to the legal position it held on the date of dissolution, including property, rights, privileges, franchises, liabilities, contracts, disabilities and debts.
The revival is subject to a specific exception: it does not affect any rights acquired by a person after the corporation’s dissolution.
The Act came into force on Royal Assent and is recorded as Statutes of Ontario, 2025, chapter Pr17.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Applicant’s rationale and factual basis for revival
The Preamble summarizes why the private Act was sought: a board member applied, describing the dissolution as inadvertent and noting that activities continued in the corporation’s name after dissolution. The practical effect of the Preamble is to frame the Legislature’s reason for intervening — it signals that revival is corrective (not punitive) and is based on asserted continuity of operations, a factual point that opponents or third parties may contest.
Revival and scope — what is restored
Section 1 performs the substantive work: it revives the corporation and restores it to its legal position as of the dissolution date. The provision lists what returns — property, rights, privileges and franchises — and expressly includes liabilities, contracts, disabilities and debts. For practitioners, this is a broad restoration that can revive pre‑dissolution claims and obligations; it also creates potential tension with intervening transactions and raises questions about how title registries, contract counterparties and creditors will be notified and vindicate their interests.
Preserving third‑party acquisitions after dissolution
Embedded in the revival language is a limitation: restoration is “subject to any rights acquired by any person after its dissolution.” That clause preserves the legal positions of bona fide purchasers and others who obtained rights during the dissolution period. The text does not define the scope of "rights acquired," so disputes may arise over whether a given transfer, lien, or contractual arrangement falls within the protected category.
Commencement — timing of legal effect
Section 2 states the Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent. Although commencement is prospective from Royal Assent, the substantive Section 1 operates to recreate the corporation’s position effective as of the prior dissolution date. That produces a retroactive legal effect that can revive obligations and claims dating back decades, even though the corporate existence is only restored moving forward from Royal Assent.
Short title
Section 3 assigns the short title, Honey Harbour Community Church Inc. Act, 2025. This is a boilerplate but practical element: as a named private Act it will appear in the Statutes under a chapter number and can be cited directly in future disputes, title searches and corporate filings.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- The church’s board and members — revival restores corporate capacity to hold property, sue and be sued, manage funds and resume formal governance under the corporation’s original legal identity.
- Pre‑dissolution creditors and contract counterparties — parties with rights or claims that existed at the dissolution date may now press those claims against a legally revived entity rather than losing priority due to dissolution.
- Local community and beneficiaries — individuals and groups that relied on the church’s programs or assets may regain access to property or services that were in legal limbo during the dissolution.
- Title holders and registries seeking clarity — land registry offices and municipal authorities gain a clear statutory basis for resolving ownership questions tied to the corporation’s real property holdings.
Who Bears the Cost
- Third parties who transacted with the dissolved entity after dissolution — although the Act protects post‑dissolution acquisitions, affected parties may still face litigation to prove their status and bear legal and administrative costs defending rights.
- Insurers and donors — insurers could face coverage disputes about acts performed during the dissolution period, and donors who gave during that window may confront questions about the validity of transfers or receipt of charitable receipting.
- Provincial registries and municipal agencies — these bodies will need to process updated corporate filings, reconcile titles and may absorb administrative work without an explicit funding mechanism.
- The revived corporation itself — resurrecting decades of potential liabilities, tax obligations or outstanding debts may impose financial burdens the organization did not anticipate.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The Act resolves hardship for the original stakeholders by retroactively restoring the corporation, but in doing so it risks unsettling third parties who relied on the dissolution; the central tension is between correcting an inadvertent administrative error for one set of actors and preserving reliance‑based finality for others who transacted during the corporation’s dormancy.
The Act’s central implementation challenge is defining the boundary between revived pre‑dissolution rights and protected post‑dissolution acquisitions. The statute protects "any rights acquired by any person after its dissolution," but it does not define what constitutes acquisition (registration, constructive notice, equitable interest) or set standards for good faith or notice.
That ambiguity will prompt litigation over whether particular transfers, liens, or contracts are shielded from revival. Relatedly, statutes of limitation and laches may be implicated: the Act can revive causes of action that otherwise would have been time‑barred, but courts may still consider equitable defenses and the conduct of parties over the intervening decades.
Operationally, revival raises practical questions about title and insurance. Land registries will need to reconcile historic entries with a revived legal owner; insurers may assert that coverage lapsed during the dissolution period or deny claims for acts done while the corporation lacked legal existence.
Donors, grantors and counterparties who acted in reliance on the corporation’s dissolution may face reputational and financial risk even where statutory protection applies, because proving protected status can require time and expense. Finally, the choice of a private Act — rather than an administrative or court‑ordered revival under corporate governance legislation — sets a precedent for using legislative remedies in similar cases, which has policy implications about access, equity and the appropriate forum for correcting administrative corporate defaults.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.