The appellant appealed a motion judge's refusal to declare that its default judgment against the respondent survived the respondent's bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and the refusal to grant leave to issue a Writ of Seizure and Sale.
The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by applying a criminal standard of proof to the s. 178(1)(d) declaration and set that refusal aside.
However, the Court upheld the refusal to grant leave to issue the Writ of Seizure, as the respondent had detrimentally relied on the appellant's delay in asserting its claim during the bankruptcy proceedings.
