Ilchenko

The moving party creditor brought a motion to annul the consumer debtor's consumer proposal.

The creditor had failed to file a proof of claim within the statutory time periods, resulting in the proposal being deemed accepted and approved.

The creditor also commenced actions against the debtor and the administrator without obtaining leave of the court, breaching the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

However, the debtor was ineligible to file a consumer proposal because her aggregate debts, including the creditor's judgment, exceeded the $250,000 statutory limit.

Balancing the factors, including the debtor's ineligibility and the massive disparity between the proven claims and the creditor's claim, the court exercised its discretion to annul the consumer proposal, despite the creditor's misconduct.

The bankrupt applied for a discharge after being in bankruptcy for 17 years.

The discharge was opposed by the Trustee and several creditors, including the Canada Revenue Agency, on the basis of multiple facts under section 173 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt had misappropriated over $9 million, spent the funds on an extravagant lifestyle, failed to account for the loss of assets, and breached his duties to report income and expenses.

The court also found the bankrupt breached the duty of good faith under section 4.2 of the BIA.

Concluding that the bankrupt was not an honest and unfortunate debtor, the court refused an absolute discharge and instead granted a conditional discharge requiring the bankrupt to pay $100,000 to the estate and fulfill all outstanding tax and reporting obligations.

The bankrupt applied for an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the trustee and an opposing creditor (the bankrupt's brother) on the grounds that the bankrupt failed to disclose significant real property assets, acted as a straw borrower for her common-law spouse, obtained post-bankruptcy credit, and failed to fulfill her duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt was uncooperative, evasive, and untruthful, having engaged in a pattern of deceit regarding her income, assets, and liabilities.

Applying the principles from Giannotti, the court refused the discharge and imposed strict conditions before the bankrupt could re-apply in 24 months.

The bankrupt, a former real estate developer, sought an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The discharge was opposed by the Trustee, the Canada Revenue Agency, and several creditors, who argued that the bankrupt's assets were less than 50 cents on the dollar for reasons he could be held responsible for, and that he failed to perform his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the bankrupt had engaged in an asset protection strategy, incurred significant personal liabilities without the means to pay them, and failed to disclose his true post-bankruptcy lifestyle and use of a corporate credit card.

The court declined to refuse the discharge entirely but imposed a substantial conditional order requiring the bankrupt to pay $960,000 and fulfill various outstanding duties.

The moving party, a creditor, brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on its appeal from the trustee's disallowance of its proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The trustee opposed the motion, arguing that the parties had previously agreed to limit the appeal record and that admitting the evidence would undermine the efficiency of the bankruptcy process.

The court found that no binding agreement precluded the evidence and that refusing to admit the newly discovered documents would result in an injustice to the creditor.

The court exercised its discretion to admit the fresh evidence, allowing the trustee to file responding documentation.

The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy opposed the Licensed Insolvency Trustee's Statement of Receipts and Disbursements, seeking a $3,000 reduction in fees due to significant delays and misconduct in administering the estate over 18 years.

The court found the trustee's conduct resulted in irresponsible decisions, unnecessary services, and a failure to properly report to the court, causing the bankrupt to remain undischarged for 17 years.

Applying the Hess principles, the court granted the requested $3,000 reduction, reducing the trustee's fees to $17,000.

The Licensed Insolvency Trustee sought approval of its Statement of Receipts and Disbursements and its discharge in a summary administration bankruptcy.

A former creditor, who had previously demanded the disallowance of her own proof of claim, opposed the discharge on numerous grounds, repeating allegations previously dismissed by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and other courts.

The court found the opposing party lacked standing as an 'interested person' and that her objections were unfounded and vexatious.

The court approved the trustee's accounts, granted the discharge, and ordered the opposing party to pay $19,970.09 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to her reprehensible conduct.

The bankrupt brought a motion to strike certain evidence filed by a creditor, Alpa Stairs and Railings Inc., in response to the bankrupt's motion to expunge Alpa's proof of claim.

The bankrupt sought to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by Alpa's representative, arguing it contained inadmissible hearsay, opinion, and argument, and relied on transcripts of examinations under s. 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of individuals who were not parties to the proceeding.

The court struck several paragraphs and exhibits from the affidavit that violated rules against hearsay and opinion evidence.

However, the court held that the s. 163 examination transcripts themselves were admissible evidence on the expungement motion under s. 163(3) of the BIA.

The bankrupt applied for an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

The trustee opposed the discharge under s. 173(1)(o) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, arguing the bankrupt failed to perform his duties by not disclosing and assisting in the realization of a 47-foot yacht.

The court found the bankrupt was evasive, uncooperative, and failed to fulfill his duties to disclose and deliver the yacht to the trustee.

Given the bankrupt's conduct and the need to maintain the integrity of the bankruptcy system, the court refused an absolute discharge and instead granted a conditional discharge requiring the bankrupt to pay $40,000 to the estate over 60 months.

The bankrupt brought a motion to expunge or reduce a proof of claim filed by a creditor in the amount of $5,994,500, which the bankruptcy trustee had compromised and accepted at $2,580,000.

The claim was based on a promissory note related to a share purchase agreement.

The bankrupt argued that a subsequent oral governing agreement superseded the note, making it unenforceable until the bankrupt was repaid his investments, which never occurred.

The court found the creditor's evidence lacked credibility, noting his prior criminal convictions for fraud and his reliance on the governing agreement to obtain a lighter sentence in US criminal proceedings.

The court concluded the claim was not legitimate and reduced it to an $85,000 costs award.

The bankrupt brought a motion to compel a lawyer representing certain creditors to answer questions refused during a cross-examination on his affidavit.

The bankrupt alleged that the lawyer and his client obtained confidential information about the bankrupt's assets through unauthorized access to his email.

The lawyer refused to disclose the identity of his client or the client's source, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the identity of the client and the communications were presumptively privileged, the privilege had not been waived, and compelling the answers would violate the fairness and proportionality principles, especially given the bankrupt's failure to disclose an exculpatory expert report.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant and third party to answer undertakings and refusals from an examination for discovery in a wrongful dismissal action.

The questions related to alleged whistleblower issues, a threatening text message sent by the third party, and unpaid commissions.

The court applied the tests for relevance and proportionality, ordering the respondents to answer most of the questions as they were logically connected to the matters in issue defined by the pleadings, particularly the allegations of bad faith conduct.

Questions that sought legal conclusions or information readily available from another party were not ordered to be answered.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's administrative dismissal order that dismissed their product liability action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The action arose from an incident where the plaintiff was allegedly struck by a defective liftgate on a minivan.

The court applied the Reid factors using a contextual approach to determine if the dismissal should be set aside.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for over two years of cumulative delay and that the dismissal was not due to mere inadvertence.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to the degradation of physical evidence (the prop rods) and fading witness memories.

The motion to set aside the dismissal order was dismissed.

The bankrupt applied for an absolute discharge from bankruptcy, which was opposed by his former spouse and the bankruptcy trustee.

The bankruptcy was filed shortly after the former spouse obtained a family law judgment for equalization and costs.

The court found that the bankrupt had transferred significant assets to his mother and a business associate prior to bankruptcy to defeat his former spouse's claims, and failed to disclose these transfers or a personal injury settlement to the trustee.

The court held that the bankrupt's conduct was evasive and untruthful, and that he used the bankruptcy process to avoid his family law obligations.

The court refused an absolute discharge and granted a conditional discharge requiring the bankrupt to pay $170,036.50 to the trustee, representing the compromised equalization claim and costs.

The creditor brought a motion for security for costs against the bankrupt in response to the bankrupt's motion to expunge the creditor's proof of claim.

The creditor argued that the bankrupt's expungement motion was frivolous and vexatious under Rule 56.01(1)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the evidence, including allegations of breach of trust under the Construction Act, and found that the creditor failed to meet the high standard required to prove the expungement motion was devoid of merit or had virtually no chance of succeeding.

Applying a holistic approach, the court dismissed the motion for security for costs.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the sale of a vending machine business.

The plaintiff had obtained an order for substituted service but failed to serve the complete statement of claim on the defendant.

Despite the defendant notifying the plaintiff's counsel of the incomplete service and requesting the full claim to file a defence, the plaintiff's counsel proceeded to note the defendant in default and obtained a default judgment.

The court applied the five-part test from Mountain View Farms and found that the motion was brought promptly, there was a plausible excuse for the default, the defendant had an arguable defence on the merits, the balance of prejudice favoured the defendant, and upholding the judgment would negatively affect the integrity of the administration of justice.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.

The applicant brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking the recovery or interim preservation of his vehicle, which had been repossessed by the respondents under the Repair and Storage Liens Act (RSLA).

The applicant alleged the respondents relied on forged invoices and failed to comply with RSLA requirements.

The court declined to order the interim recovery of the vehicle on an ex parte basis due to significant factual disputes, adjourning those requests to be heard on notice.

However, the court granted an interim preservation order under Rule 45.01, restraining the respondents from selling or dealing with the vehicle pending a full hearing.

The bankrupt applied for a discharge from his second bankruptcy.

The Trustee and the Superintendent of Bankruptcy opposed the discharge, citing the bankrupt's failure to disclose the sale of a property and the transfer of proceeds to his ex-wife shortly before bankruptcy, as well as outstanding fines and a restitution order from a conviction for operating as an unregistered travel agent.

The court found the bankrupt to be evasive, untruthful, and uncooperative, concluding he was not an honest and unfortunate debtor.

The court refused the discharge and imposed conditions for any future reapplication, including payments towards the restitution order and to the Trustee.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion to fix the bankrupt's surplus income obligation and to compel payment from her real estate commissions.

The bankrupt, a realtor, had failed to cooperate with the Trustee, breached a mediation agreement, and failed to report her income.

The court fixed the interim surplus income obligation at $85,386, ordered the release of a $25,000 trust fund to the Trustee, and directed the bankrupt's brokerage to pay 100% of her commissions to the Trustee until the arrears were satisfied.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Trustee due to the bankrupt's conduct.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a residential property after the defendant vendor failed to close the transaction due to an inability to discharge two mortgages.

The mortgages were subsequently assigned to a third party who opposed the CPL and sought to sell the property under power of sale.

The court found that while the plaintiff established a triable issue regarding an interest in land, the balance of equities under the Dhunna factors did not favour granting the CPL.

The plaintiff failed to prove the property was unique, damages were an adequate remedy, and the third-party mortgagee would suffer greater prejudice if the CPL were granted.