Kristine Genevieve Holder

These two appeals arise from a receivership order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The motion judge found both the debtor and its management, as well as United Group of Companies and its management, in civil contempt of the receivership and asset recovery orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the motion judge’s reasoning or exercise of discretion, and confirmed the costs awards and sentences imposed.

The plaintiffs (vendors) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a $50,000 deposit from the defendants (purchasers) after a residential real estate deal failed.

The vendors argued a binding agreement was formed, while the purchasers contended that the vendors' addition of "Schedule B" and requirement for its acknowledgment constituted a counteroffer that was never accepted.

The court applied the test for summary judgment and found that the vendors' actions, including the MLS listing stipulation and the demand for Schedule B to be initialled and signed, indicated they considered Schedule B an essential part of the agreement.

Therefore, the return of the agreement with Schedule B was a counteroffer, which the purchasers did not accept.

The court concluded that no binding contract existed and dismissed the vendors' claim for the deposit.

The plaintiff, Wasiem Diab, sought repayment of $161,000 allegedly loaned to the defendants, George and Haralabos Tsitsos (referred to as Bobby and Georgia), for a property purchase.

The defendants denied an oral loan agreement with Diab, asserting the money came from Kakouli Poka, who later revealed Diab as the source.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing Diab's action.

The court found no direct oral agreement between Diab and Bobby, rejected theories of past consideration and agency, and concluded that the pleadings did not support claims against Georgia or the "primary debtor" theory.

The plaintiff obtained default judgment for mortgage payment and possession due to the corporate defendant's default, with Mr. Casano as guarantor.

The defendants repeatedly sought stays of enforcement of the writ of possession, citing refinancing efforts and disputing the outstanding balance.

Despite multiple stays granted by the court over 19 months, no refinancing occurred, and the mortgage remained unsatisfied.

The defendants' latest ex parte motion for a further 30-day stay was denied, with the court finding a lack of credibility in their refinancing efforts and noting their failure to formally dispute the balance through proper legal channels.

The court emphasized that further extensions would bring the court's reputation into disrepute.

The applicants sought a contempt order against the respondents for alleged non-compliance with a Master's order requiring an accounting.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants lacked standing because the underlying action against them had been dismissed, and the Master's order for accounting was not made for their benefit.

Furthermore, the court agreed that the Master's order was not sufficiently clear or unequivocal to form the basis for a contempt finding.

The bankrupt appealed a registrar’s determination concerning the characterization of a disability tax credit refund received during bankruptcy.

The issue was whether the refund constituted “property” under s. 67 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or “income” under s. 68.

Relying on prior bankruptcy jurisprudence and policy considerations underlying the disability tax credit, the court held that the credit functions to augment income available to persons with disabilities.

Accordingly, the refund was properly treated as income under s. 68 of the Act rather than property of the estate.