Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

A creditor applied to annul the consumer proposals of two undischarged bankrupts.

The debtors had filed the consumer proposals to escape opposed discharges, but failed to disclose significant real estate transactions and income to the administrator and creditors.

The court found that the debtors breached their duties of good faith and full disclosure under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court exercised its discretion to annul the consumer proposals.

The Receiver brought a motion to approve a sale transaction arising from a court-ordered sale process.

The respondent debtors brought a competing motion seeking to redeem the assigned debt and discharge the Receiver.

The debtors waited until after the sale process was completed and a successful bidder chosen before seeking to redeem.

The court found that allowing redemption at this late stage would undermine the integrity of the receivership process, noting the debtors failed to provide unconditional proof of funds.

The debtors' motion to redeem was dismissed, and the Receiver's proposed transaction was approved.

The bankrupt sought a discharge from her second bankruptcy, which was materially contributed to by her struggles with addiction.

The court considered the rehabilitative purpose of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the bankrupt's ongoing recovery efforts.

The court ordered a conditional and suspended discharge, requiring the bankrupt to attend 12-step meetings, engage in counseling, and return to court annually for three years to demonstrate ongoing recovery.

The applicant creditors sought a bankruptcy order against the respondent debtor after she failed to pay a mortgage on a rental property and an unsatisfied judgment of over $255,000.

The respondent argued she had sufficient equity in her properties but needed time to resolve a large tax debt with the CRA.

The court found that the respondent had committed an act of bankruptcy by ceasing to meet her liabilities generally as they became due, noting the unpaid mortgage, the judgment, and a nearly $1 million CRA lien.

The court adjudged the respondent bankrupt and appointed a trustee.

The Receiver brought a motion under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to recover payments made by the insolvent debtor company to various parties, primarily family members and a former employee, in the year prior to bankruptcy.

The court found that the company was insolvent during the relevant period.

Payments to several family members and a non-arm's length salesperson were ordered to be repaid as they were found to be either transfers at undervalue or preferential payments.

Claims against a landlord, an independent contractor, and a long-time manager were dismissed as the transactions were either supported by consideration or were arm's length.

In an ongoing insolvency proceeding, a creditor whose $25 million profit share claim was valued at zero by the proposal trustee brought a motion seeking production of pre-report communications between the trustee and the experts hired by the trustee to appraise the claim.

The moving party argued that the communications were relevant to assess whether the trustee improperly influenced the experts or if unstated communications influenced the trustee's valuation.

The court distinguished the request from a demand for the trustee's working file under s. 26 of the BIA, applying civil procedure principles of relevance to order production of the requested communications, subject to redactions for strategy or tactics.

The applicant bank brought a motion to appoint an interim receiver over the respondent companies' assets pursuant to section 47(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The companies had defaulted on their obligations under a master purchase and servicing agreement, failed to secure refinancing, and admitted to transferring funds from a blocked trust account following a fraudulent cheque incident.

The court found that the appointment of an interim receiver was necessary to protect the debtor's estate and the interests of the bank, and granted the motion with limited scope to preserve assets pending further resolution.

The respondent filed an assignment in bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to bring a motion in court to lift the stay, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought an order to change the name of the respondent employer to the company that purchased its assets during CCAA restructuring.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the purchaser was a separate legal entity that did not assume the respondent's liabilities.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the application entirely because it was commenced in violation of a Superior Court order staying proceedings against the respondent under the CCAA.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it was barred by a claims process and bar order issued in the respondent's CCAA restructuring proceedings.

The Tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction to hear a claim that is barred by a court order.

The applicant was given 30 days to advise the Tribunal of his intent to bring a motion to the Superior Court for leave to file a late claim, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The Tribunal previously ruled that the application could not proceed without leave of the Superior Court of Justice due to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal if she obtained leave.

Having failed to do so or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment against a corporate respondent and two individuals.

The Tribunal received notice that the corporate respondent was dissolved under bankruptcy and a court order stayed all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intends to pursue the applications, seek leave to lift the stay, and provide alternate addresses for service for the individual respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The corporate respondent subsequently filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings against the respondent are stayed pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal within one year if the stay is lifted by the Bankruptcy Court, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent subsequently filed for protection under the CCAA and was placed in receivership, resulting in a Superior Court order staying all proceedings against it.

The applicant requested that his application proceed because the respondent was settling with secured creditors.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was bound by the Superior Court's receivership order staying proceedings, and directed the applicant to seek leave from the Court if he wished to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his group benefits were discontinued during a company restructuring.

The respondent failed to file a timely response but subsequently submitted that it had declared bankruptcy and that the successor company had no employment relationship with the applicant.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on whether the application is stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate and an individual respondent.

The corporate respondent filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings against the corporate respondent were stayed pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the individual respondent because the applicant failed to provide a correct address for service, despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent submitted that the application was stayed pursuant to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide submissions or advise if he had sought leave to lift the stay.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision stating that the application appears abandoned and will be dismissed unless the applicant provides written submissions within five days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The proceeding was previously stayed due to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act protecting the respondent.

The applicant notified the Tribunal that the respondent had emerged from bankruptcy protection and requested that his application be made active.

The Tribunal found that the stay was no longer in effect and directed the respondent to file a Response within 35 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application against three corporate respondents.

One respondent filed a response indicating it purchased assets from another respondent that was under CCAA protection.

The CEO of the other two respondents informed the Tribunal they were insolvent and subject to CCAA proceedings or receivership.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to make submissions and provide any court orders regarding the effect of the CCAA proceedings on the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and three individual respondents.

The organizational respondent was in receivership, and the Receiver argued the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal previously noted it was unclear if the individual respondents received notice of the application.

The applicant requested the Tribunal direct the organizational respondent to disclose the addresses of the individual respondents.

The Tribunal directed the Receiver to advise if it would accept service for the individual respondents or to provide their current or most recent addresses.