Brandon Jaffe

The trustee in bankruptcy appealed a registrar’s decision holding that a trustee’s report filed in response to an appeal from the disallowance of a proof of claim was inadmissible and that evidence had to be provided by sworn affidavit.

The court held that the registrar erred in principle and law by interpreting the Rules of Civil Procedure as requiring affidavit evidence exclusively and by failing to follow binding authority recognizing the admissibility of reports from court officers such as trustees, receivers, and monitors.

The court confirmed that trustee reports are routinely accepted as evidence in insolvency proceedings under common law principles and are not barred by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was directed to be reheard before a different registrar.

A creditor spouse brought a motion seeking to annul the bankrupt’s automatic discharge and to lift the bankruptcy stay to pursue equalization claims against the bankrupt’s pension.

The creditor argued she intended to oppose the discharge but was misinformed about the discharge date and had difficulty filing a proof of claim due to incomplete financial disclosure.

The court held that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act establishes strict statutory timelines and the creditor had received notice of the impending discharge on two occasions.

Because no notice of opposition was filed within the statutory period and prior claim disallowances were not appealed, the court found no basis to set aside the automatic discharge.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the trustee.

Costs decision following an application involving condominium lien rights and priority issues between a condominium corporation, a contractor, and a secured lender.

The court assessed the applicant’s claim for costs against the contractor and found the requested amount disproportionate given the undefended and uncomplicated nature of the proceeding.

Costs were reduced and fixed on a substantial indemnity basis.

Although the lender was successful on the priority issue, the court departed from the general rule that costs follow the event due to the novel and important legal issue raised.

Limited costs were nevertheless awarded to the lender for an adjournment attendance caused by late service.

A condominium corporation applied for declarations and compliance orders requiring a unit owner to pay longstanding common expense arrears and sought to characterize the arrears as damages under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 so they could be added to common expenses and enforced by a priority lien.

The owner did not dispute that arrears were owed, but a mortgagee intervened, arguing the corporation could not revive expired lien rights after failing to register liens within the three‑month period required by s. 85(2).

The court held that s. 134 cannot be used to circumvent the statutory lien regime or revive expired lien rights in a manner that would prejudice prior mortgagees who had received no notice.

While the owner was ordered to pay the arrears with interest, the court refused to declare the arrears as damages capable of being added to common expenses and enforced by a new priority lien.

The equities favored the mortgagee because the condominium corporation failed to preserve its statutory lien rights.

The moving party sought to set aside default judgments entered against him in two civil actions arising from alleged investment misrepresentations and breaches of fiduciary duty.

The court applied the test under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring prompt motion, a reasonable explanation for the default, and a defence on the merits with an air of reality.

While the first two requirements were conceded, the court found the moving party failed to demonstrate a valid defence.

The affidavit evidence did not deny key allegations of reliance, misrepresentations, or investment advice, and contained unsupported assertions regarding investor sophistication and contributory negligence.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and refused to set aside the default judgments.