E. Patrick Shea

The bankrupt applied for discharge from bankruptcy.

On the first day of the hearing, the bankrupt raised preliminary issues regarding the standing of an opposing creditor, whether an alleged undue preference could be considered, and the admissibility of documents.

The court held that the opposing creditor had standing because its proof of claim had not been disallowed.

The court deferred the undue preference issue, noting a separate proceeding had been scheduled to determine it, and ordered that the discharge hearing be deferred until that issue was resolved.

The court declined to rule on document admissibility in advance.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of its reports, approval of fees and disbursements, authorization to sell a property to fund payment of those fees, and directions regarding the validity of a corporate board election.

The court approved the receiver’s activities and found the fees of both the receiver and its counsel to be fair and reasonable given the unusual and contentious nature of the receivership.

The court authorized the sale of the property under the receiver’s control to generate funds to pay the receiver’s outstanding fees.

The request for directions regarding the validity of the corporate board election was declined as beyond the scope of the receivership proceeding.

The court ordered that the parties benefiting from the receivership share the receiver’s fees on a 50/50 basis.

The court-appointed Receiver for the properties of a local branch of The Polish Alliance of Canada moved for directions regarding its administration.

The plaintiff national association criticized the Receiver's neutrality, objecting to the presence of former branch executives on the property and disputing the membership list for an upcoming executive election.

The court approved the Receiver's conduct as prudent and neutral, rejected the plaintiff's attempt to unilaterally dictate branch membership, and directed the Receiver to hold an election among the 19 recognized remaining branch members.

In an insolvency proceeding, a self-represented solicitor sought costs following partial success on an application determining his claim against the debtor’s estate.

The claimant requested full indemnity costs alleging improper conduct by the receiver and failure to engage in settlement discussions.

The court rejected those allegations and held that full indemnity costs were not justified.

However, because the claimant achieved a recovery significantly higher than the receiver’s proposed distribution, he was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs payable from the receivership estate.

Recognition proceedings were brought under the cross‑border insolvency provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act concerning a foreign main liquidation proceeding in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.

Multiple parties asserted competing claims to approximately $4 million in assets held by a Canadian financial institution.

Motions were pending regarding whether a stay of proceedings should be lifted or modified to permit bankruptcy proceedings in Canada or enforcement of claimed interests.

The court held there was insufficient time to fully argue the issues and maintained the existing interim stay and related orders to preserve the status quo pending a full hearing.

The endorsement emphasized that the interim directions were not intended to interfere with the foreign main proceeding.

The applicant, a creditor of the debtor company under CCAA protection, sought an order authorizing it to file a plan of compromise or arrangement and directing meetings of affected creditors to vote on the plan.

The proposed plan did not include a shareholder vote.

The debtor opposed the application, arguing the plan was not in the best interests of stakeholders and improperly excluded shareholders.

The court found that because the debtor's shares had potential equity value depending on the outcome of pending litigation, and the proposed plan would radically alter the economic prospects of the shares, a shareholder vote was required.

The application to order a meeting of creditors without a shareholder vote was denied.