Sarah Sherhols

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' statement of claim, or in the alternative, for leave to file a statement of defence, arguing that the action was barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA) and section 111(2) of the Pension Act.

The plaintiffs, including a former RCMP Staff Sergeant, sought damages for intentional torts, breach of contract, and Charter violations arising from alleged harassment and assault during her service, for which she had already received a disability pension for PTSD.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claims were entirely barred, particularly for damages not covered by the pension, claims for events after the initial injury, and Charter claims.

The court also found that section 111(2) of the Pension Act did not require a further stay as the plaintiff was not seeking to review or re-assess her pension.

The bankrupt applied for a discharge from bankruptcy, which was opposed by the Department of National Defence and the bankrupt’s former spouse.

The court considered several grounds under s. 173(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, including that the bankrupt’s assets were worth less than fifty cents on the dollar of his unsecured liabilities, that he contributed to the bankruptcy through unjustifiable extravagance, and that he had previously been convicted of fraud by a Standing Court Martial.

Evidence also established that the bankrupt failed to disclose the disposition of a boat transferred to his children prior to bankruptcy.

Because multiple s. 173 facts were proven, the court held that an absolute discharge could not be granted.

A conditional discharge was ordered requiring payments totaling $8,500 to the trustee.

A government department brought a motion under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to lift the automatic stay of proceedings to pursue recovery of funds obtained through fraud.

The bankrupt had previously pleaded guilty to two fraud counts involving false education allowance claims while serving in the Canadian Armed Forces and had admitted to additional improper claims.

The court considered whether the claim could survive bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(e) of the Act as a debt arising from fraudulent misrepresentation.

Finding that the criminal convictions and admissions constituted sound reasons and that public funds were involved, the court concluded the creditor would be materially prejudiced if the stay remained.

The stay was lifted to permit the creditor to pursue its claim in the ordinary courts.