Karen L. Dawson

The bankrupt applied under s. 187(5) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to vary a conditional discharge order, arguing the Trustee incorrectly calculated surplus income and failed to consider his family and financial situation.

The Trustee opposed, arguing the application was premature and should have been brought under s. 172(3).

The court held that s. 187(5) was the appropriate mechanism because the bankrupt sought to adduce new evidence and arguments overlooked at the initial hearing.

The court found the Trustee's surplus income calculation was incorrect as it failed to account for the bankrupt's actual monthly income and his custody of two children.

Concluding that further payments would hinder the bankrupt's rehabilitation, the court varied the order to grant an absolute discharge.

An agricultural industry association sought a stay of a provincial regulation restricting the use of neonicotinoid‑treated seeds pending further compliance time, arguing farmers would suffer economic harm due to regulatory timing requirements.

The province opposed and brought a cross‑motion to strike the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that injunctive relief against the Crown is highly restricted and unavailable absent circumstances such as deliberate flouting of the law, which were not present.

Even if relief were available, the applicant failed to meet the RJR‑MacDonald test for an interlocutory stay because the alleged harm was speculative and compensable in damages and the balance of convenience favoured environmental protection.

The court also held the application improperly sought to rewrite or delay the operation of a regulation rather than determine legal rights and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The defendant, a resident of South Africa, brought a motion to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction or to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, alleged an international conspiracy involving the defendant that resulted in the misappropriation of funds intended for a wind power project.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that the plaintiff established a good arguable case for jurisdiction, as the alleged tort and breach of contract had sufficient connections to Ontario.

The court also declined to strike the pleadings, finding them adequate at this early stage, and validated the service of the statement of claim despite technical deficiencies.