A. Rogerson

The moving parties sought an order sentencing the responding party to five days imprisonment for his civil contempt, following his failure to attend an examination as ordered.

The responding party argued that his pending appeal of the contempt order automatically stayed the sanctioning hearing under s. 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court rejected this argument, finding that a sanctioning hearing is not a proceeding under the order appealed from.

Applying the Boily factors, the court ordered that the responding party be given one final opportunity to purge his contempt by attending an examination within seven days of the final adjudication of his appeal, failing which he will be sentenced to seven days of incarceration.

The moving party sought a stay of an order requiring him to produce documents and attend an examination in a foreign main bankruptcy proceeding, pending his father's application in Hong Kong to annul the underlying bankruptcy order.

The court determined the order was interlocutory and applied the RJR-Macdonald test.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm to the moving party, and that the balance of convenience favoured the trustees.

The moving parties, acting as foreign representatives and trustees in bankruptcy, brought a motion for contempt against the responding party for failing to attend an examination as ordered.

The responding party brought a motion for the presiding judge to recuse herself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the moving parties' submissions regarding the bankrupt's character.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no objective basis for bias.

The court then granted the contempt motion, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the responding party intentionally failed to comply with a clear and unequivocal order to attend the examination.

The responding party was given 10 days to purge his contempt.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte interim injunction preventing the defendant lenders from calling in a loan or enforcing a general security agreement.

On the return of the motion, the court set aside the injunction, finding the plaintiffs deliberately failed to disclose a material 'additional security' clause that gave the lenders majority equity and control of the corporation.

The court also granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the action brought in the corporation's name, as the individual plaintiff lacked the corporate authority to commence litigation on its behalf without a board resolution.