Colby Linthwaite

The bankrupt, a former real estate developer, sought an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the Trustee, the Canada Revenue Agency, and several creditors, who argued that the bankrupt's assets were less than 50 cents on the dollar for reasons he could be held responsible for, and that he failed to perform his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in an asset protection strategy, incurred significant personal liabilities without the means to pay them, and failed to disclose his true post-bankruptcy lifestyle and use of a corporate credit card.

The court declined to refuse the discharge entirely but imposed a substantial conditional order requiring the bankrupt to pay $960,000 and fulfill various outstanding duties.

The applicant creditor brought a bankruptcy application against the respondent debtor, alleging an unpaid debt of approximately $7.9 million USD for LED light bulbs supplied under a distribution agreement.

The debtor disputed the application and sought a stay, arguing it had a bona fide counterclaim for damages resulting from the applicant allegedly supplying patent-infringing goods.

The court found that the debt was clearly established and that the debtor had committed an act of bankruptcy by ceasing to meet its liabilities generally.

The court dismissed the debtor's motion for a stay, finding the counterclaim lacked merit and was not bona fide, and granted the bankruptcy order.

The bankrupt brought a motion to strike certain evidence filed by a creditor, Alpa Stairs and Railings Inc., in response to the bankrupt's motion to expunge Alpa's proof of claim.

The bankrupt sought to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by Alpa's representative, arguing it contained inadmissible hearsay, opinion, and argument, and relied on transcripts of examinations under s. 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of individuals who were not parties to the proceeding.

The court struck several paragraphs and exhibits from the affidavit that violated rules against hearsay and opinion evidence.

However, the court held that the s. 163 examination transcripts themselves were admissible evidence on the expungement motion under s. 163(3) of the BIA.

The trustee in bankruptcy brought a motion to annul the bankrupt's discharge and vest the shares of a corporation in the estate as after-acquired property.

The bankrupt claimed his wife had owned the shares since incorporation.

The court found the bankrupt owned the shares while undischarged, noting he had admitted ownership in another proceeding and had fabricated corporate records and tax returns to support his wife's claim.

The court annulled the discharge, vested the shares in the trustee, and awarded substantial indemnity costs jointly and severally against the bankrupt and his wife.

The court-appointed Receiver of Chieftain Metals brought a motion for discharge.

The secured creditor, West Face, supported the discharge but sought a provision allowing it to move for the re-appointment of a receiver at any time in the future to facilitate a potential sale of the mining project.

The Province of British Columbia and the Taku River Tlingit First Nation opposed an open-ended right, citing environmental remediation concerns and uncertainty.

The court granted the discharge but limited the secured creditor's right to seek re-appointment to a two-year period, balancing the commercial interests with the need for certainty for the Province and First Nation.

The defendant brought a motion to amend its defence and counterclaim and to add a third party claim, alleging that the plaintiff's asset sale violated the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed amendments and third party claim were statute-barred.

The court found that the defendant knew or ought to have known the material facts underlying the proposed claims more than two years before bringing the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the proposed claims were statute-barred and that adding them would cause non-compensable prejudice to the impecunious plaintiff.

The moving party, claiming to be a creditor, brought a motion to annul a bankruptcy proposal that had been accepted by creditors and approved by the court.

The moving party alleged injustice and fraud regarding the voting of contingent claims and the transfer of business opportunities to a related company.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it to be an abuse of process and a collateral attack on the court's approval order, as the moving party was aware of the material facts at the time of the creditors' meeting but failed to object or appeal.

The defendants, a former employee and his wife, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employer's claim.

The employer sued the former employee for over $600,000 in accumulated trading losses incurred during his employment as a trader.

The court had to determine whether the employee was contractually obligated to indemnify the employer for trading losses in excess of his personal reserve account upon termination of his employment.

The court found that while the employer was entitled to apply the balance of the personal reserve against the losses, there was no express or implied term in the employment contract requiring the employee to cover the remaining losses.

The defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim for the excess losses was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion concerning the scope of cross-examination on affidavits relied upon by the defendants in ongoing civil litigation.

The defendants argued that the materials had already been the subject of extensive cross-examinations during an earlier similar motion and that further cross-examination should not be permitted.

The plaintiff disagreed and sought the opportunity to conduct additional cross-examinations.

The court determined that the issue required determination on the record rather than by conference call.

The parties were directed to file brief facta addressing the issue and to attend for submissions on a scheduled date.

A pharmaceutical company brought summary judgment motions against banks for conversion after an employee fraudulently issued corporate cheques payable to entities with names similar to legitimate customers and deposited them into accounts he controlled.

The banks asserted statutory defences under the Bills of Exchange Act, including the fictitious payee rule and the holder in due course provision, and advanced negligence-based counterclaims and equitable set-off.

The court held the payees were plausibly identifiable real entities and therefore not fictitious or non‑existent for the purposes of s. 20(5) of the Act.

It further found that s. 165(3) did not apply because the cheques were not delivered to authorized persons entitled to them.

The negligence-based counterclaims and related defences were barred by the strict liability regime governing cheque conversion.