5 total
Appeal dismissed; equitable title to shares passed despite alleged non-compliance with transfer restrictions.
The appellant challenged the legal effectiveness of a transfer of shares in a closely held corporation by a bankrupt shareholder's trustee in bankruptcy to another corporation.
The appellant argued the transfer did not comply with share transfer restrictions.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that equitable title had passed for good consideration and that any defect in the original transfer was cured by a subsequent confirming transfer by the trustee.
Appeal dismissed; no error in finding no unrealized assets or in awarding substantial indemnity costs.
The appellant bank appealed a decision dismissing its motion to reappoint a trustee in bankruptcy and annulling a bankruptcy order, as well as the substantial indemnity costs awarded against it.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that there were no unrealized or undistributed assets under s. 41(11) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, noting the bank failed to adduce evidence that certain appraisals would have altered property valuations.
The Court also upheld the substantial indemnity costs orders, finding the trial judge acted within his discretion.
The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.
Appeal dismissed; authorized farm-to-farm sale of crops extinguished security interest under PPSA s. 25(1).
The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a security interest in crops.
The Court of Appeal found that the loan agreement expressly authorized the sale of the secured crops on a farm-to-farm basis.
Because the sale was authorized, it fell within s. 25(1) of the Personal Property Security Act, meaning the respondent took title to the crops free and clear of the security interest.
The appeal was dismissed.
Costs of appeal fixed at $30,000 on partial indemnity scale and apportioned between unsuccessful appellants.
In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal determined the appropriate disposition of costs.
The court awarded costs only to the respondent Guardian, Wasserman Arsenault, denying costs to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy because its role was minor and duplicative.
The court rejected the respondents' request for full indemnity based on their low negotiated hourly rates, fixing costs on a partial indemnity scale at $30,000 all inclusive.
The costs were apportioned 75% against the appellant Rumanek & Cooper and 25% against the appellant C.I.B.C., based on the number and complexity of the issues relating to each.
Court has no jurisdiction to award trustee fees exceeding the statutory tariff in summary bankruptcy administrations.
The appellants, a former trustee in bankruptcy and a bank, appealed a decision determining several questions of law regarding the administration of summary bankruptcy estates.
The former trustee sought fees in excess of the prescribed tariff for extraordinary work performed, while the bank sought priority for funds advanced to keep the bankrupt estates' administration running.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the court has no jurisdiction to award trustee fees in excess of the statutory tariff for summary administration estates.
The court also affirmed that any withdrawals for overhead must be credited against the trustee's fees, that the Guardian appointed by the Superintendent has priority over the former trustee for its fees, and that any shortfall in the consolidated trust account must be borne by the fee claimants rather than the creditors.
