The moving party, the debtor's father-in-law, brought a motion to annul a consumer proposal that had already been fully performed and for which the administrator had been discharged.
The moving party held a default judgment against the debtor that was not disclosed during the consumer proposal process.
The court held that it has the statutory authority under subsection 66.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to annul a completed consumer proposal.
The court exercised its discretion to annul the proposal, finding that the debtor's failure to disclose the significant claim undermined the integrity of the process and prejudiced the creditor, who would have had sufficient voting power to defeat the proposal.
