Dennis Geoffrey Crawford

A creditor appealed a deputy registrar’s refusal to lift the automatic stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act following the debtor’s bankruptcy.

The creditor argued the underlying judgment involved conduct amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation such that the debt would survive discharge under s. 178(1)(e), and that the registrar failed to consider sound reasons to lift the stay.

The court held that the registrar correctly applied the governing principles and was not required to make new findings of fraud absent such findings by the trial judge.

Because the underlying judgment contained no finding of fraud or false pretences, and lifting the stay would give the creditor an advantage inconsistent with the statutory scheme, there was no basis to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed.

A commercial tenant sought relief from forfeiture after the landlord terminated the lease and changed the locks due to rent arrears exceeding $44,000.

The tenant argued it withheld base rent because it expected a credit for overpaid additional rent and had not received an accounting.

The court held that the lease permitted immediate re-entry for non‑payment and that the tenant was a serial defaulter with significant arrears.

Relief from forfeiture is discretionary and only granted where forfeiture would be inequitable or unjust.

The court found nothing inequitable in allowing the landlord to enforce its contractual rights and dismissed the application.