3 total
Court compelled answers to discovery questions in BIA action.
In an action brought under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking to recover alleged debts and set aside transactions under ss. 95 and 96, the plaintiff brought a refusals motion following the examination for discovery of a former chairman of the bankrupt corporation.
The court considered several refusals relating to questions about payments received from the bankrupt and communications with other directors and related parties.
The court held the questions were relevant to pleaded issues, including the defendant’s receipt of payments and whether certain parties were dealing at arm’s length with the debtor.
The defendant was ordered to re-attend for examination to answer the specified questions and any arising from those answers.
Costs of the motion were fixed in favour of the plaintiff.
Summary judgment granted where defence raised only unsupported allegations against clear debt documents.
The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment based on promissory notes totaling more than $8 million CAD and $290,750 USD, supported by a Confirmation of Indebtedness and a Consent to Judgment signed by the defendant with independent legal advice.
The defendant filed a statement of defence and counterclaim alleging that the notes were executed only to assist the plaintiff with banking arrangements and that the plaintiff breached an investment agreement.
The court found the defence consisted of unsupported bald allegations and that the documentary evidence, including the acknowledgment of indebtedness and consent to judgment, was clear and unambiguous.
Applying the summary judgment principles from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff and the defendant’s counterclaim and motion to transfer the matter to Toronto were dismissed.
Employee denied early withdrawal from employer profit sharing plan.
An employee sought a court order compelling payment of $150,000 from his employer’s deferred profit sharing plan due to alleged financial hardship.
The employer argued that it was not the proper respondent because the plan trustee administered the plan and that the employee did not meet the plan’s pre‑retirement withdrawal criteria.
The court held that only the trustee could effect payment and that the employee’s plan holdings did not qualify for pre‑retirement withdrawal under the governing trust deed.
The provision allowing trustees to distribute plan property pursuant to a court order did not grant a broad discretionary power to order payment outside the plan’s terms.
The court declined to interfere with the trustee’s discretion and dismissed the application.
