Ken Page

The bankrupt sought to vary a prior order refusing discharge under section 187(5) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The bankrupt was deemed bankrupt on June 21, 2011, following rejection of a Division I proposal.

The cause of bankruptcy was the failure of True Blend Tobacco Company Inc., a company co-owned by the bankrupt.

The bankrupt had previously been bankrupt in 1994 from a failed restaurant franchise.

The discharge was refused in 2017 on multiple grounds including failure to cooperate with the trustee, failure to provide sufficient information regarding surplus income obligations, transfer of shares to his mother after bankruptcy without informing the trustee, and failure to maintain proper books and records.

The court dismissed the motion to vary, finding the bankrupt had not met the onus to establish fundamental changes in circumstances or new evidence of a substantial nature that would justify varying the refusal order.

The court found the bankrupt continued to demonstrate credibility issues, had incorporated a new corporation despite swearing he would not, and had failed to follow the roadmap set out for rehabilitation.

This decision addresses the enforcement of municipal bylaws concerning accessory structures and debris accumulation on private property within the City of Kawartha Lakes.

The Court confirms the validity of the Township of Emily Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 1996-30 and the authority of the municipality under the Municipal Act, 2001 to enforce bylaws on private property.

The defendants were found to have exceeded the maximum permitted number of accessory structures and failed to comply with a Clean and Clear notice to remove debris by the specified deadline.

The Court rejected the defence of legal non-conforming use due to lack of evidence that the structures predated the bylaw.

The defendants’ claims of financial hardship and renovation activities did not excuse non-compliance.

The Court found the prosecution met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the defendants.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from multiple motions and applications.

Andrew Clifford Miracle's applications (vexatious litigant, security for costs, bankruptcy motion) were dismissed.

Glenn Bogue's motions (solicitors' lien, summary judgment) were largely successful.

Rod Gram's summary judgment motion was dismissed, but his motion to dismiss Miracle's counterclaim was granted.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Glenn Bogue for his successful motions and to the Receiver for an abandoned motion by Miracle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding Miracle's conduct not egregious enough, and reserved costs between Gram and Miracle.

The trustee in bankruptcy brought a motion to annul the bankrupt's discharge and vest the shares of a corporation in the estate as after-acquired property.

The bankrupt claimed his wife had owned the shares since incorporation.

The court found the bankrupt owned the shares while undischarged, noting he had admitted ownership in another proceeding and had fabricated corporate records and tax returns to support his wife's claim.

The court annulled the discharge, vested the shares in the trustee, and awarded substantial indemnity costs jointly and severally against the bankrupt and his wife.

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.

This motion concerns the taxation of three bankrupt estates following negative comments from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB).

The OSB challenged the trustee's practice of obtaining "GST Refund Assignment" agreements from bankrupts to retain Goods and Services Tax (GST) refunds for estate administration costs or conditional orders.

The trustee argued these agreements, if properly worded and understood by the bankrupt, could waive the exempt status of GST refunds, citing *Re McIntyre*.

The court disagreed, finding such agreements unenforceable as GST refunds are Crown debts not assignable under the *Financial Administration Act* and are expressly excluded from divisible property under the *Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act* (BIA) and its Rules when a dividend is available to creditors.

The court held that statutory law cannot be circumvented by contractual agreements, requiring the trustee to return the GST refunds to the bankrupts and restate the estate accounts.

The creditors moved to set aside the automatic discharge of the bankrupt, Arash Nashid, which occurred despite their informal notice of opposition to the trustee.

The court found jurisdiction to set aside the discharge where there is injustice or an appearance of injustice.

Considering factors such as the timeliness of the creditors' informal notice, the trustee's prejudicial actions, the bankrupt's awareness of the opposition, the lawyer's inadvertence, lack of prejudice to the bankrupt, and prejudice to the creditors, the court granted the motion.

The automatic discharge was set aside, and the creditors were granted an extension to formally file their notice of opposition.