Bruce Simpson

The plaintiffs, who moved from Thailand to Canada to operate a Thai restaurant, sued the defendants for breach of contract and unjust enrichment after their employment was terminated.

The court found no enforceable contract but held that the defendants were unjustly enriched by the plaintiffs' financial contributions and goods shipped for the restaurant.

The plaintiffs' recovery was offset by loans and expenses incurred by the defendants.

The court also awarded the plaintiff cook unpaid wages and pay in lieu of notice, while granting the defendants' counterclaim for cash retained by the plaintiff husband.

The debtor company filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Three days later, a fuel supplier processed a pre-authorized debit for pre-NOI arrears.

The debtor sought the return of the funds, arguing the payment violated the stay of proceedings under s. 69(1)(a) of the BIA.

The court held that processing the pre-authorized debit constituted a 'remedy' captured by the stay, as it gave the supplier an advantage over other creditors.

The supplier was ordered to return the funds, less a set-off for fuel supplied post-NOI.

The respondent brought a motion for the sale of the jointly-owned family home and equal division of proceeds, challenging a prior vesting order in favour of the applicant.

The parties were unmarried but had children together.

The respondent's pleadings had previously been struck for failure to disclose.

The court corrected a calculation error from a previous endorsement regarding the home's equity and post-separation expenses, resulting in a small deficit which the court treated as a wash.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to contest the vesting order, finding it inappropriate given his failure to pay outstanding costs orders, child support arrears, and consistent disregard for court orders.

The Crown applied under s. 490(3) of the Criminal Code to retain a seized laptop hard drive for further investigation, while the respondent sought its return, alleging a warrantless seizure in breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

The police had seized the laptop from the respondent as he left a residence that was subject to a search warrant for child pornography.

The court found the arrest was unlawful and the seizure warrantless, but held the seizure was reasonable due to exigent circumstances, specifically the imminent risk of evidence destruction.

The court granted a 12-month extension for the detention of the hard drive, finding the investigation complex due to the ongoing efforts to decrypt the 26-digit alphanumeric password.

In a bankruptcy discharge proceeding, a creditor sought substantial indemnity costs for opposing the bankrupt’s discharge as well as recovery of the trustee’s legal fees and administrative expenses.

The court had previously denied the bankrupt’s discharge and was asked to determine the appropriate costs consequences.

Applying s. 197(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court held that costs normally follow the event on a partial indemnity basis.

While the creditor was successful in opposing the discharge, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and reduced the requested amount to $1,500 to avoid imposing an excessive financial burden that would undermine the debtor’s potential rehabilitation.

Determination of the trustee’s legal costs and expenses was deferred to the final discharge hearing and taxation of the trustee’s accounts.