Jeffrey A.L. Kriwetz

The bankrupt, an undischarged chiropractor, applied for a discharge from bankruptcy after making an assignment in 2019.

The trustee, CRA, and the Office of the Superintendent in Bankruptcy opposed the discharge on multiple grounds under s. 173(1) of the BIA, citing repeated failures to cooperate, non-disclosure of bank accounts, credit cards, corporate interests, post-bankruptcy equipment purchases, gambling activity, and inability to verify surplus income obligations.

The court found the grounds under ss. 173(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (j), (k), (m), and (o) proven, rejected the bankrupt's credibility on key points, and concluded that the bankrupt was not an honest but unfortunate debtor.

The discharge was refused, with leave to re-apply in one year upon full cooperation and disclosure to the trustee.

On competing civil motions in a mortgage enforcement action, the court addressed whether a retired lawyer and beneficiary could represent a corporate trustee plaintiff under rr. 15.01 and 2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted relief on consent to amend the corporate defendant name, validate service, and direct that this action and a related action be tried together or consecutively as directed by the trial judge.

Applying discretionary access-to-justice principles and considering the trustee's bare trustee role, beneficiary alignment, inability to fund counsel, and litigation competence of the proposed representative, the court dispensed with strict compliance and granted leave for non-lawyer representation.

The defendants' cross-motion relief, including dismissal requests, conditions, security for costs, and adjournment for further service steps, was dismissed.