Edward M. Hyer

The Trustee in Bankruptcy appealed a Registrar's decision that allowed a secured claim by Snap Auto Finance Corp. The Trustee had initially disallowed Snap's claim, arguing that Snap failed to perfect its security interest in a vehicle within the timeframes required by Ontario's Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) after the vehicle was brought into Ontario.

The Registrar found the vehicle had not been "brought in" to Ontario.

The Superior Court found the Registrar erred by not considering the debtor's assignment in bankruptcy in Ontario and his sworn Statement of Affairs, which indicated Ontario residency.

The Court concluded the vehicle was "brought in" to Ontario in November 2015, and Snap failed to perfect its security interest within the statutory 60 days or 15 days of notice.

The Trustee's appeal was allowed, restoring the disallowance of Snap's secured claim, making Snap's interest subordinate to the Trustee's.

The bankrupt purchased a vehicle in Alberta, financed by the creditor who registered its security interest under the Alberta PPSA.

The bankrupt later spent time in Ontario and brought the vehicle there, but maintained his Alberta employment, driver's license, and vehicle registration.

Upon bankruptcy, the trustee disallowed the creditor's secured claim, arguing the creditor failed to register in Ontario within 15 days of the vehicle being 'brought in' under s. 5(2) of the Ontario PPSA.

The court allowed the creditor's appeal, finding the vehicle was merely physically present in Ontario for convenience and had not been 'brought in' within the meaning of the Act, thus preserving the creditor's secured status.

The appellant was arrested for possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and his truck was seized as offence-related property.

The assignee of the conditional sales contract for the truck, Ally Credit Canada Limited, applied for its return under s. 490 of the Criminal Code.

On the application date, the appellant's counsel's assistant requested an adjournment, which the application judge refused, ordering the truck returned to Ally.

The appellant appealed the order.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge did not err in refusing the adjournment and that Ally had established it was entitled to possession of the truck due to the appellant's breach of the contract.