Associate Judge Alexander Ilchenko

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 sought to expunge or reduce a creditor's claim, and the motion was entirely successful.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that expungement motion.

The court found the creditor's conduct in opposing the motion to be reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous, having taken inconsistent legal and factual positions across various proceedings.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the bankrupt due to the creditor's conduct and the complexity and importance of the issues.

This endorsement addresses costs for two related motions within a bankruptcy proceeding.

The first, a Claim Examination Motion brought by certain creditors against the Trustee, was withdrawn.

The second was a Trustee's motion to compel John Cardillo, the designated person for the bankrupt corporation, to attend an examination and produce documents, which the Trustee largely succeeded on.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $14,435.75 to the Trustee against the withdrawing creditors, finding their motion unnecessary and poorly founded in law.

For the second motion, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $7,580.04 to the Trustee against John Cardillo, citing his persistent and reprehensible failure to fulfill his statutory duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The bankrupt sought an absolute discharge.

The Trustee and opposing creditors opposed it, citing the bankrupt's failure to account for assets, rash and hazardous speculations, and failure to perform duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The court found several facts under s.173(1) of the BIA proven, including the assets not being of a value equal to fifty cents on the dollar, failure to account for loss of assets, and rash speculation.

The court imposed a conditional discharge requiring a significant payment, a five-year ban on unsecured credit, a ten-year ban on soliciting investments, and a five-year suspension of discharge, emphasizing the need to balance debtor rehabilitation with commercial morality and public interest.

The Landlord brought a motion to lift the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) to enforce an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) against the bankrupt tenants.

The tenants had accumulated significant rent arrears and had not complied with the LTB order to void the termination of their tenancy, nor had they paid rent post-bankruptcy.

The court found that the bankruptcies were deliberately filed to frustrate the LTB order and that the landlord was materially prejudiced by the continued stay.

The motion was granted, allowing the landlord to obtain possession of the property, and it was clarified that section 84.2 of the BIA did not apply as the termination was not solely due to bankruptcy or pre-bankruptcy non-payment.

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 court issued a costs endorsement following a motion where the Moving Defendants sought to compel undertakings and defence medical examinations (DMEs).

The court found divided success: the Plaintiff succeeded in resisting the neurosurgical DME and the broad request for ongoing undertakings, while the Moving Defendants succeeded in compelling a physiatry DME.

The court determined costs on a partial indemnity basis, awarding the Plaintiff $7,933.23 and the Moving Defendants $1,180.63, reflecting the Plaintiff's greater overall success on the motion.

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 Plaintiff, AZZ Galvanizing Canada Limited, brought a motion to compel discovery responses from the Defendants, Empire Steel Inc. and 1340614 Ontario Inc. (IBT).

The motion primarily concerned the disclosure of hydro cost allocation and subtenant information (Issue 14) by Empire.

While the initial motion was broad, issues were narrowed by agreement, and IBT's portion was adjourned due to counsel's unavailability.

The court found in favour of the Plaintiff on Issue 14, compelling Empire to provide the requested information.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $16,094.69 to the Plaintiff, finding them largely successful.

The court rejected Empire's arguments for costs against the Plaintiff, citing improper submissions and the lack of novelty in the legal issues.

The costs were deemed fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the complexity and importance of the issues.

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.