Abstract:Environmental obligations fit uncomfortably into the framework of federal insolvency law. Canadian courts have struggled to articulate which environmental obligations should be stayed, compromised, and discharged in insolvency proceedings and which should remain fully enforceable. In its 2019 decision, Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, the Supreme Court of Canada drew a distinction between two types of environmental obligations: debts and public duties. Debts are subject to being stayed, compromised, and discharged, whereas public duties remain enforceable notwithstanding the obligor's insolvency proceedings. This article elaborates the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court of Canada between debts and public duties by considering who constitutes the public. It offers three answers. The public could include existing members of the human community, future generations of humanity, or non-human environmental entities. The article synthesizes the legal precedents supporting the different conceptions of the public and traces their implications for insolvency practice. Critics charge that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Orphan Well has improperly given environmental obligations a super-priority in insolvency proceedings and that such a reordering of insolvency priorities should have been left to Parliament. Yet careful attention to the 'public' character of environmental obligations justifies judicial interventions like the Court's decision in Orphan Well. As humanity faces the existential threat of climate change, the common law provides scope for reimagining legal concepts to better serve the needs of our communities.

中文翻译：

---

精心想象：重新思考加拿大破产法中的环境义务

摘要：环境义务不适用于联邦破产法的框架。加拿大法院一直在努力阐明哪些环境义务应在破产程序中中止、妥协和解除，哪些应保持完全可执行。加拿大最高法院在其 2019 年的 Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd 裁决中区分了两种类型的环境义务：债务和公共义务。债务可能会被搁置、妥协和解除，而尽管债务人进行了破产程序，但公共义务仍然可以强制执行。本文详细阐述了加拿大最高法院通过考虑谁构成公众来区分债务和公共义务。它提供了三个答案。公众可以包括人类社区的现有成员、人类的后代或非人类环境实体。本文综合了支持不同公众概念的法律先例，并追溯了它们对破产实践的影响。批评者指责加拿大最高法院在 Orphan Well 案中的裁决不恰当地赋予环境义务在破产程序中的超级优先权，而这种对破产优先权的重新排序本应留给议会处理。然而，对环境义务的“公共”特性的仔细关注证明了司法干预的合理性，例如法院在孤儿井案中的裁决。随着人类面临气候变化的生存威胁，