Matthew R. Harris

The applicants sought to remove Arthur and Douglas Carey as attorneys for property and personal care for their mother, Jennie Carey, and to appoint Robert Carey as guardian, alleging financial impropriety and isolation.

The court found strong evidence of misconduct and neglect regarding property management, including failure to account for funds and non-compliance with disclosure orders.

While Jennie was physically well cared for and wished to remain with Arthur and Douglas, their failure to foster family contact was a breach of personal care duties.

The court removed Arthur and Douglas as sole attorneys.

For property, Arthur, Robert, and Edward Carey were appointed joint guardians.

For personal care, Arthur and Robert were appointed joint guardians.

The court emphasized a nuanced approach to balance Jennie's well-being and wishes with the need for financial oversight and family contact.

A consumer debtor, Muhammed Salman Pathan, sought an order compelling Western University to confer an MBA degree upon him, arguing his outstanding tuition debt was discharged by his consumer proposal.

Western opposed, asserting the debt constituted a student loan under section 178(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, thus surviving the proposal, and that the conferral of a degree was solely within its discretion.

The court found the debt was indeed a student loan under a provincial enactment, not released by the consumer proposal, and affirmed Western's discretionary power to withhold a degree for non-payment of fees, concluding that this policy did not conflict with the "fresh start" principle of bankruptcy law.

The debtor's motion was dismissed.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of s. 178(1)(a.1)(i) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, specifically whether a debt arising from intentionally inflicted harm, including psychological harm, should be released upon bankruptcy.

The Registrar had found that the societal interest in releasing this debt was outweighed by the benefit of not releasing it, aligning with the purpose of the BIA to provide a fresh start to an honest but hapless debtor, not to release judgments for intentional harm.

The court agreed with the Registrar's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of their action for delay.

The action, arising from a construction contract dispute, was dismissed after the appellants failed to set it down for trial by the court-ordered deadline.

The Divisional Court found no error in the Master's application of the Reid test, noting the appellants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and bore the primary responsibility to move the litigation forward.

The appeal on the merits was dismissed, but leave to appeal costs was granted and the costs awarded below were reduced to ensure proportionality.

In a bankruptcy motion, the trustee sought to set aside a bankrupt's transfers of his interest in a residential property to his children for nominal consideration.

The court rejected the assertion that the property had originally been acquired in trust for the children, found the transfers were non-arm's length transfers at undervalue within the statutory review period, and held that they were made with intent to defeat creditors.

Applying the indicia of fraudulent conveyance, the court declared the transfers void against the trustee under s. 96(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The trustee's alternative claim for a monetary judgment was denied for lack of valuation evidence, and no costs were awarded.

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.