COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF KENYN YOO also known as KENNETH YOO Court File No. 31-373499 Estate File No. 31-373499 DATED THE 4th DAY OF APRIL, 2000
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF YOUNG HAE YOO Court File No. 31-373498 Estate File No. 31-373498 DATED THE 4th DAY OF APRIL, 2000
AND RE: CLARICA TRUST COMPANY (Applicant) (Respondent) (Moving Party) – and – KUNYN YOO also known as KENNETH YOO, YOUNG HAE YOO and PADDON & YORKE INC. (Respondents)(Appellants) (Responding Parties)
AND RE: CLARICA TRUST COMPANY (Plaintiff) (Respondent) – and – KUNYN YOO also known as KENNETH YOO, YOUNG HAE YOO, JAY YOO and JENNIFER YOO (Denfendants) (Appellants)
AND RE: FOCUS NATIONAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION (Plaintiff) (Respondent) – and – TDC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Y.D.C. FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, KENNETH YOO and YOUNG YOO (Defendants) (Appellants)
BEFORE: LASKIN, GOUDGE and FELDMAN JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Ronald Birken for the moving party (respondent)
Milton A. Davis for the responding parties (appellants)
HEARD: October 3, 2003
On appeal from the order of Justice James M. Farley of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 30, 2003.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The moving party submits that the responding parties’ appeal does not come within s. 193(a) to (d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and that, therefore, their appeal lies only with leave. We disagree with this submission.
2We are satisfied that the responding parties’ appeal comes within s. 193(c) of the Act. The effect of the order appealed is to declare Clarica a creditor, and if it is successful on the motion to set aside the proposal, to allow Clarica to prove a claim in excess of $3 million. Thus, the property involved in the appeal exceeds $10,000 within s. 193(c) of the Act.
3Accordingly, the motion to quash is dismissed with costs to the responding parties fixed in the agreed amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.
“John Laskin J.A.”
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“K. Feldman J.A.”