James P. E. Hardy

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for leave to introduce a supplementary affidavit in response to the defendants' summary judgment motion.

The affidavit addressed two issues: a conversation regarding legal representation and the plaintiffs' financial losses, including an accounting opinion.

Applying Rule 39.02(2) and Rule 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court granted leave for both aspects of the supplementary affidavit, finding the evidence relevant and necessary for a just determination on the merits, particularly given the complexity and potential value of the case, and that the defendants were not surprised by the accounting opinion.

The applicants, who held a Small Claims Court judgment against the respondents, brought an application to annul the respondents' bankruptcy filings.

They contended that the respondents' property was significantly undervalued in their Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) filings, suggesting that the respondents were not insolvent or had abused the court process.

The court accepted the applicants' expert appraisal, which valued the property substantially higher than declared by the respondents.

However, the application was dismissed.

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that Mrs. Fast was not an insolvent person or had abused the process, and that Mr. Fast was eligible to make his consumer proposal as he was already bankrupt at the time of filing.