Miles D. O’Reilly

The bankrupt, a real estate agent, applied for a discharge from bankruptcy.

He had failed to file income tax and GST/HST returns for over ten years, resulting in a tax debt exceeding $200,000, which constituted over 75% of his unsecured claims.

The Canada Revenue Agency opposed an absolute discharge under section 172.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court refused an absolute discharge but granted a conditional discharge, requiring the bankrupt to pay $22,860 (representing 10% of the principal tax debt) to the trustee and to comply with ongoing tax filing and installment obligations.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to strike a paragraph of the respondent's reply pleading.

The applicants argued the paragraph improperly referred to a privileged settlement offer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the law of settlement privilege and that the evidentiary record supported the conclusion that the communication was not privileged.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct, which included a twenty-year ban from trading in securities by the Ontario Securities Commission for grave violations.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, as it was entitled to rely on the Agreed Statement of Facts from the OSC proceedings and conclude that the appellant evaded responsibility for his past actions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that his debt to the respondent survived his discharge from bankruptcy due to a breach of trust.

The trial judge found the appellant engaged in reprehensible conduct, including filing false declarations that subcontractors had been paid, with the intent to deceive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant failed to account for project expenses and that his conduct exhibited a significant element of dishonesty, satisfying the requirements of s. 178.1(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant purchased the respondent's insurance brokerage business from a trustee in bankruptcy.

The agreement of purchase and sale did not contain a non-solicitation clause.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's declaration that the respondent was entitled to solicit his former clients.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that in an involuntary alienation of assets in a bankruptcy, there is no common law implied obligation on the part of the bankrupt not to compete and solicit former clients.

The appellant law partnership, a creditor of a bankrupt management company, brought an action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act to set aside a transfer of assets to a related company.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding it was barred by the six-year limitation period in the Limitations Act or by the equitable doctrine of laches.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is neither an action on a simple contract nor an action upon the case, and thus is not caught by the six-year limitation period.

The Court also found a triable issue regarding whether the respondents suffered prejudice sufficient to establish the defence of laches.