Matthew Harris

The bankrupt, an undischarged chiropractor, applied for a discharge from bankruptcy after making an assignment in 2019.

The trustee, CRA, and the Office of the Superintendent in Bankruptcy opposed the discharge on multiple grounds under s. 173(1) of the BIA, citing repeated failures to cooperate, non-disclosure of bank accounts, credit cards, corporate interests, post-bankruptcy equipment purchases, gambling activity, and inability to verify surplus income obligations.

The court found the grounds under ss. 173(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (j), (k), (m), and (o) proven, rejected the bankrupt's credibility on key points, and concluded that the bankrupt was not an honest but unfortunate debtor.

The discharge was refused, with leave to re-apply in one year upon full cooperation and disclosure to the trustee.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant repudiated an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendant conceded liability but argued the plaintiff failed to adequately mitigate his damages by not leaving the property on the market longer.

The court found the plaintiff acted reasonably in relying on his real estate agent's advice, relisting the property, and accepting a subsequent offer that represented fair market value.

Summary judgment was granted for the shortfall in the purchase price plus carrying costs.

The plaintiff law firm moved for leave nunc pro tunc to commence an action for unpaid fees after the defendant clients had already initiated an assessment of the accounts under the Solicitors Act.

The plaintiff argued the case was not ripe for assessment because the clients disputed the retainer.

The court denied leave, emphasizing the legislative policy that fee disputes should be diverted to the speedy and inexpensive assessment process, and held that pandemic-related delays in the Assessment Office do not justify bypassing this statutory framework.

A bankruptcy trustee sought a declaration that a property interest held in the name of the bankrupt’s brother was held in trust for the bankrupt and therefore formed part of the bankrupt estate.

The trustee argued the brother was added to title solely to facilitate mortgage refinancing and had no beneficial ownership.

The respondents asserted the brother contributed significant funds toward the purchase and mortgage payments and held a beneficial interest proportionate to those contributions.

The court rejected the credibility of the respondents’ evidence and preferred contemporaneous documentary records showing the transfer was made for financing purposes only.

The court set aside the transfer of joint tenancy, held the brother had no legal interest in the property, but recognized a trust interest for his $15,000 contribution.