Allan Fogul

Discharge hearing for a bankrupt real estate agent who filed for bankruptcy in October 2020 with significant debts including a substantial costs award from family law proceedings.

The Trustee opposed discharge on multiple grounds including failure to comply with surplus income obligations under section 68 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, failure to perform duties under the Act, and unjustifiable extravagance in living.

The bankrupt earned over $590,000 in gross income during the bankruptcy period but dissipated funds without remitting tax or HST installments.

The court found multiple section 173 facts proven and imposed a conditional discharge requiring payment of $40,000 plus 20% of proven claims, along with tax compliance conditions.

This motion, brought within a receivership, addressed a dispute between Sluyter Isaac Investments Inc., a secured creditor, and 1902408 Ontario Ltd., the registered owner of the Brockville Property.

Sluyter claimed $600,000 plus interest and costs, asserting a secured interest in fixtures attached to the property, and sought payment from the net proceeds of sale. 1902408 Ontario Ltd. opposed, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court held that Sluyter's claim to enforce its security interest in fixtures, arising under the Personal Property Security Act, is an interest in personal property, not real property, and is therefore subject to the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, rather than the ten-year period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The applicant sought an extension of time to perfect a motion for leave to appeal from an order dismissing his motion for security for costs against the trustee in his bankruptcy.

The trustee had sought re-appointment following the discharge of the original trustee to realize on the appreciated equity of the bankrupt's property.

The lower court judge dismissed the security for costs motion, finding that the trustee was not a nominal plaintiff and that the justice of the case did not warrant the order.

The applicant failed to meet the perfection deadline and sought an extension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the extension motion, finding insufficient intention to appeal, prejudice to the respondent, and no prima facie merit to the proposed appeal.

The bankrupt applied for an automatic discharge, which was opposed by his former wife, a major creditor owed an equalization payment.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in a nefarious scheme to hide over $400,000 in offshore accounts and his mother's name to defeat his wife's claims.

Finding multiple facts proven under s. 173(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, including failure to account for assets and hazardous speculation, the court refused an absolute discharge.

The bankrupt was granted a conditional discharge requiring him to pay $350,000 to the Trustee.

The appellant employer appealed a jury award of $468,969.18, including $300,000 in general damages, for sexual assaults committed against the respondent employee.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury to consider whether other traumatic events in the respondent's life materially contributed to her psychological injuries under the 'crumbling skull' or successive tortious events principles.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in relying on the material contribution test for causation, which led to her failure to leave these questions with the jury.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal, concluding the error did not cause a substantial wrong because the evidence that other incidents contributed to the damages was too weak to warrant jury consideration.

The general damages award, while high, was not plainly unreasonable.