Marryam Singh

Following a successful appeal in which the appellants were awarded a 50% interest in a residential property, the court addressed trial costs.

The appellants sought approximately $155,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the result beat their offer to settle.

The court declined, finding the result did not beat the offer because the appellants were awarded 50% ownership rather than 50% of the equity, with the equity value remaining to be determined on a subsequent accounting.

Trial costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,000 all inclusive.

The appeal arose from a dispute over whether a substantial contribution to a home purchase created a beneficial ownership interest under resulting trust principles.

The majority held the trial judge made a legal error by disregarding key third-party evidence probative of the transferor’s objective intention and allowed the appeal.

The court declared the appellants entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in the property, set aside the judgment and costs below, and remitted related sale and accounting remedies for case management.

A dissent would have dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible legal or factual error and concluding the transfer was supported by consideration.

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 moving party, the debtor's father-in-law, brought a motion to annul a consumer proposal that had already been fully performed and for which the administrator had been discharged.

The moving party held a default judgment against the debtor that was not disclosed during the consumer proposal process.

The court held that it has the statutory authority under subsection 66.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to annul a completed consumer proposal.

The court exercised its discretion to annul the proposal, finding that the debtor's failure to disclose the significant claim undermined the integrity of the process and prejudiced the creditor, who would have had sufficient voting power to defeat the proposal.