D. Shiller

The applicant sought an order to register and enforce a Certificate of Costs issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the respondents.

The underlying British Columbia action involved a dispute over the management of a company, resulting in a judgment and an award of special costs against the respondents due to reprehensible conduct.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the British Columbia court had a real and substantial connection to the litigation and properly exercised jurisdiction.

As the respondents established no applicable defences, the court granted the order to register and enter the Certificate of Costs in Ontario.

A creditor brought a motion to compel the bankrupt to satisfy an undertaking given during an examination under s. 163(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The undertaking required production of complaints made by the bankrupt to the Law Society and the Human Rights Tribunal to clarify the nature of his relationship with another individual, an issue relevant to the bankrupt’s family unit status and estate.

The bankrupt sought to provide the documents only to the trustee and argued they contained confidential information.

The court held that where examining counsel conducts a s. 163 examination on behalf of the trustee and creditors, undertakings must be fulfilled by delivering documents to that examining counsel.

The bankrupt was ordered to obtain and deliver the documents, with directions that the trustee not file them in the public record without further court order due to potential confidentiality concerns.

A creditor sought an order under s. 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act requiring a third party to attend for examination regarding the affairs of a bankrupt estate.

The responding party argued that s. 163(1) did not permit a creditor to conduct such an examination.

The court held that, where the trustee lacks funds and creditors authorize the examination, a creditor’s counsel may conduct the examination in the trustee’s name.

In the alternative, the evidentiary record satisfied the “sufficient cause” threshold under s. 163(2) because the proposed examination concerned potential estate assets and conflicting evidence about corporate ownership and loans involving the bankrupt.

The motion was granted and the third party was ordered to attend for examination.