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.