David Filice

The bankrupt applied for an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the trustee and an opposing creditor (the bankrupt's brother) on the grounds that the bankrupt failed to disclose significant real property assets, acted as a straw borrower for her common-law spouse, obtained post-bankruptcy credit, and failed to fulfill her duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt was uncooperative, evasive, and untruthful, having engaged in a pattern of deceit regarding her income, assets, and liabilities.

Applying the principles from Giannotti, the court refused the discharge and imposed strict conditions before the bankrupt could re-apply in 24 months.

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.