Envision - Supreme Court of Canada finds that a continuation-style amalgamation will always satisfy the ss. 87(1)(a) and (b) conditions

A B.C. statute (which was interpreted as providing for continuation-style amalgamations notwithstanding somewhat non-standard language) was found to have the effect of deeming all property (and liabilities) of the predecessors to have become property (and liabilities) of Amalco, as required in s. 87(1).  Accordingly, an attempt to generate a "bad" (non- s. 87) amalgamation, by purporting to agree that some predecessor property did not become Amalco property, was unsuccessful.

Rather than talking about two rivers flowing together, the favoured metaphor of Rothstein J. was of the two predecessors ceasing to have separate legal personalities, but continuing "inside" Amalco.  The judgment appears to accept that the amalgamation agreement can specify the precise effective time of the amalgamation where the corporate statute does not do so.

Neal Armstrong.  Summary of Envision Credit Union v. The Queen, 2013 SCC 48, under s. 87(1).