Jane Martin

Manku & Associates Inc. (MAI), a trustee in bankruptcy, brought a motion under section 14.04 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) to be removed as trustee from twelve summary administration bankruptcy estates and to appoint Kunjar Sharma & Associates Inc. (KSAI) as the substitute trustee.

The motion was prompted by the principal trustee's health issues and desire to reduce workload.

The court addressed its jurisdiction as a registrar to hear such a motion, distinguishing it from prior case law (Woodward, Re) by emphasizing the summary administration nature of the estates and the consent of the Office of the Superintendent in Bankruptcy (OSB).

The court found it had jurisdiction and granted the substitution order, requiring KSAI to send notice to the bankrupts and known creditors.

A respondent moved to set aside an ex parte Certificate of Pending Litigation registered against a property following the death of the applicant’s son, who had lived in the property with the respondent spouse but was not on title.

The estate alleged that the respondent held an interest in the property subject to constructive or resulting trust arising from the deceased’s financial contributions to the home during the marriage.

The court held that the CPL should be discharged to permit the pending sale to close, but found a serious issue to be tried regarding the estate’s equitable claim to a portion of the respondent’s share of the proceeds.

As a result, the court ordered that the respondent’s one‑third share of the net proceeds be paid into court pending further determination of the estate’s claim.

Following motions for leave to intervene in two related insurance actions, the intervenor successfully obtained party status as a defendant.

The court considered the appropriate costs award arising from the intervention motions.

The judge found that the plaintiff’s litigation conduct—including unnecessary opposition, procedural delays, and additional cross-examinations—significantly increased the intervenor’s costs.

While the conduct did not rise to the level warranting elevated costs, partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

The court fixed costs globally for both actions and ordered the plaintiff to pay the intervenor’s costs.

Family members of a deceased life insured sought leave to intervene as parties in actions brought by the named beneficiary against two insurers for payment of life insurance proceeds.

The beneficiary had been charged with the murder of the insured, raising the public policy rule that a person cannot profit from their own wrongdoing.

The proposed intervenor, the deceased’s mother, argued she had a direct financial interest because the proceeds could fall to the estate and pass to her under intestacy if the beneficiary were disqualified.

The court held that the mother met the test under Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as she asserted a reasonable interest in the subject matter and would be adversely affected by a judgment.

Leave to intervene was granted to the mother but denied to the sister, and the insurers were permitted to pay the proceeds into court pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

The appellant collection agency appealed a Deputy Judge's decision finding it liable in negligence and awarding $5,000 in damages for mental distress to the respondent debtor.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the appellant's harassing phone calls and improper contacts with the respondent's employer breached the standard of care, as evidenced by violations of regulations under the Collection Agencies Act.

However, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the damages award because the respondent failed to provide medical evidence of a recognized psychiatric illness, which is required to recover damages for mental distress in negligence.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent trustee in bankruptcy on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $8,500 plus GST, payable by the appellants.

The appellants appealed an order approving the sale of assets by the trustee in bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to favour the successful tender on a de novo application brought under the Act.