COURT FILE NO.: 33-1180700, 33-2440262, 33-2282620 and 33-1291463
DATE: 2020/04/22
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
IN BANKRUPTCY and INSOLVENCY
COURT FILE NO.: 33-1180700
IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF
BRIAN BAXTER
OF THE CITY OF IROQUOIS
IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 33-2440262
IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF
ERMES MACORIG
OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA
IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 33-2282620
IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF
DONALD HOWARD SIMON BELANGER
OF THE CITY OF BROCKVILLE
IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 33-1291463
IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF
MICHAEL ANDERSON
OF THE CITY OF RUSSELL
IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
BEFORE: Justice Stanley J. Kershman
HEARD IN OTTAWA: April 7, 2020 at Ottawa by Teleconference
APPEARANCE: Stanley Loiselle on behalf of Raymond Chabot Inc.
Alden Christian, Solicitor for Raymond Chabot Inc.
Mr. A. Bouvet-Frechette from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy
REASONS FOR decision
Introduction
[1] The Court heard four motions brought by Raymond Chabot Inc. Licensed Insolvency Trustee (“Trustee”). Each motion requests advances of the Trustee’s remuneration prior to obtaining a letter of comment (“Letter of Comment”) from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (“OSB”) and thereafter proceeding to taxation. All of these files are ordinary administration bankruptcies.
[2] These matters were opposed by the OSB on the same grounds for all four files.
Factual Background
Brian Baxter
[3] Brian Baxter filed an assignment in bankruptcy on March 23, 2009. Surgeson Carson & Associates Inc. was appointed to act as the Licensed Insolvency Trustee (“Surgeson Carson” or “Original Trustee”) pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (hereafter, the “BIA”).
[4] On January 26, 2018, Surgeson Carson c/o Raymond Chabot Inc. was appointed as the substitute trustee to this estate (“Trustee”) pursuant to a court order. Subsequent to the order, the OSB issued an Amended Certificate of Appointment confirming the appointment of the Trustee.
[5] No inspector was appointed in this estate.
[6] Mr. Baxter is a first-time bankrupt.
[7] Surgeson Carson Inc. had filed an opposition to the Bankrupt’s discharge on the grounds that he had not paid $1,800 towards voluntary payments and that he had not remitted his 50% interest in the equity of the family home, being $35,231.11.
[8] The Bankrupt’s discharge hearing was adjourned sine die on January 27, 2010. The Bankrupt paid the $1,800 towards voluntary payments on January 27, 2010. There is no evidence of any further communication between the Original Trustee and Bankrupt after this date.
[9] Subsequent to its appointment, the Trustee communicated with the Bankrupt, who advised that he did not have the funds to repurchase his 50% interest in the family home. The Bankrupt advised that the Trustee should sell the family home and retain his 50% share of the net proceeds from the sale.
[10] The family home was sold in July 2019 and generated net proceeds of $25,007.81 for the unsecured creditors.
[11] The Bankrupt has yet to complete his second counselling session despite numerous attempts by the Trustee to schedule a meeting in this regard.
[12] Subsequent to the January 26, 2018 substitution order, the Trustee has expended time and effort in advancing the administration of this estate and has accumulated work-in-progress in the amount of $8,336.25, plus $1,083.71 for HST. These figures are current as of March 28, 2020.
[13] The current balance of funds held in the estate trust account is $32,324.92.
[14] The Trustee seeks court approval to obtain an advance of remuneration in the amount of $8,336.25, plus HST of $1,083.71, for a total of $9,419.96, for work completed up to March 28, 2020.
Ermes Macorig
[15] On November 6, 2018, Ermes Macorig filed an assignment in bankruptcy. Raymond Chabot Inc. was appointed as the licensed insolvency trustee (“Trustee”).
[16] The sole creditor who attended the first meeting of creditors held on November 26, 2018 approved the Trustee’s interim bill for services, rendered to November 17, 2018, in the amount of $8,537.00, plus HST, for a total of $9,647.38.
[17] No inspectors were appointed in this estate.
[18] The Trustee then listed this Bankrupt’s real property for sale. They received a number of offers, and ultimately sold the real property. The sale generated funds in excess of $270,000 for the benefit of the unsecured creditors.
[19] This is a first-time bankrupt. This Bankrupt is therefore required to make surplus income payments of $500 per month for 21 months until his automatic discharge, which is scheduled for August 8, 2020.
[20] The Bankrupt has completed the two mandatory counselling sessions and has otherwise performed his duties as a bankrupt.
[21] The Trustee has expended time and effort on the sale of the real property and the administration of this estate, and has accumulated work-in-progress in the amount of $21,545 as of March 28, 2020.
[22] The current balance in the estate trust account is $263,474.56.
[23] Given the anticipated automatic discharge date, the Trustee will not be able to complete the administration of this estate and have its accounts taxed until the end of 2020 in the best of circumstances, and possibly later due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
[24] The Trustee seeks court approval of an advance of remuneration in the amount of $21,545, plus HST of $2,800.85, for a total of $24,345.85, for work performed up to March 28, 2020.
Donald Howard Simon Belanger
[25] Donald Howard Simon Belanger filed an assignment in bankruptcy on August 15, 2017. Surgeson Carson & Associates Inc. (“the Original Trustee”) was appointed to act as trustee. No inspectors were appointed in the estate.
[26] On January 26, 2018, Surgeson Carson c/o Raymond Chabot Inc. was appointed as the substitute trustee to this estate (“Trustee”) pursuant to a court order. Subsequent to the order, the OSB issued an Amended Certificate of Appointment confirming the appointment of the Trustee.
[27] Mr. Belanger is a third-time bankrupt and, as such, is not eligible for an automatic discharge.
[28] The Bankrupt obtained a conditional and suspended order of discharge on October 17, 2018, which provided for the payment of $200 per month for 12 months and a suspension period of 18 months.
[29] The Bankrupt has paid the $200 for 12 months, and the suspension period expired on April 17, 2020. The Court notes that this motion was brought in March 2020.
[30] The Trustee has expended considerable time and effort in advancing the administration of this estate and has accumulated work-in-progress in the amount of $10,105 as of March 28, 2020.
[31] The current balance of funds held in the estate trust account is $28,516.45.
[32] Given the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trustee will not be able to complete the administration of this estate and have its accounts taxed by a court in the short-to-medium term.
[33] The Trustee therefore seeks court approval to obtain an advance of remuneration in the amount of $10,105, plus HST of $1,313.65, for a total of $11,418.65, for work performed up to March 28, 2020.
Michael Anderson
[34] Michael Anderson was deemed to have filed an assignment in bankruptcy on March 2, 2010 because his creditors refused to accept his proposal. Surgeson Carson & Associates Inc. was appointed to act as the Original Trustee.
[35] On January 26, 2018, Surgeson Carson c/o Raymond Chabot Inc. was appointed as the substitute trustee to this estate (“Trustee”) pursuant to a court order. Subsequent to the order, the OSB issued an Amended Certificate of Appointment confirming the appointment of the Trustee to the estate.
[36] One inspector was appointed at the outset of this matter but has since retired and has not been replaced. There are currently no inspectors appointed to this estate.
[37] Mr. Anderson is a second-time bankrupt and was required to make surplus income payments for 36 months. He is also an income tax debtor pursuant to paragraph 172.1 of the BIA.
[38] The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) filed an opposition to the Bankrupt’s discharge. The discharge hearing held on September 3, 2013 was adjourned sine die. The Trustee had also filed an opposition due to unpaid surplus income.
[39] There is no evidence of any correspondence between the Bankrupt, the Trustee, and CRA beyond this date.
[40] The Trustee attempted to contact the Bankrupt on numerous occasions without success.
[41] The Bankrupt then contacted the Trustee on March 19, 2019.
[42] The Trustee met with the Bankrupt to obtain missing information, review the status of his file, and discuss his discharge hearing. The Bankrupt provided the information requested by the Trustee and retained legal counsel in January 2020.
[43] The Bankrupt’s discharge hearing is now set for June 17, 2020.
[44] The Trustee has expended time and effort in advancing the administration of this estate and has accumulated work-in-progress in the amount of $10,625.96 as of March 28, 2020.
[45] The current balance of funds held in the estate trust account is $13,435.83.
[46] It is unclear at this time whether the June 17, 2020 discharge hearing will proceed on that date given the COVID-19 pandemic.
[47] The Trustee seeks court approval to obtain an advance of remuneration in the amount of $10,625.96, plus HST of $1,381.37, for a total of $12,007.33, for work performed up to March 28, 2020.
Position of the Trustee
[48] The Trustee argues that paragraph 4 of Directive 27R provides a list of alternatives, for the Trustee to obtain an advance of remuneration and that it can proceed by any one of them set out therein.
[49] The Trustee argues that it has received court approval for interim advances of remuneration in the past.
[50] The Trustee argues that it will take at least 120 days to complete the taxation process in the normal course, bearing in mind that it must prepare the statement of receipts and disbursements, and provide this to the OSB for comment. The OSB in turn has 21 business days to review the documents and send a Letter of Comment. Once the Letter of Comment is received, the Trustee must obtain a date and then proceed to taxation. This assumes that there are no negative comments made by the OSB in the Letter of Comment. After the matter is taxed, notice is then sent to the creditors pursuant to section 152(5) and (6) of the BIA.
[51] The Trustee says that the aforesaid timelines will hamper the Trustee’s ability to maintain adequate cash flow to fund its operations.
[52] The Trustee submits that it has had to lay off staff due to COVID-19. At the same time, the Province of Ontario has designated accountants, including trustees in bankruptcy, as an essential service.
[53] The Trustee says that, without regular cash flow, it will be a financial strain for it to maintain business operations during COVID-19.
Position of the OSB
[54] The OSB does not take issue with the facts concerning any of these four estates.
[55] The OSB argues, however, that advances approved by a court under Directive 27R are only to be made in special circumstances.
[56] The OSB says that the BIA provides that, once the statement of receipts and disbursements are provided to the OSB, it has 21 business days to review the document and send the Letter of Comment, and then the Trustee can proceed to taxation.
[57] The OSB argues that seeking an advance of the Trustees’ remuneration from the Court is premature in nature, and that it goes against current jurisprudence on advance remuneration. The OSB cites two cases in support of this position:
Films Rachel et al Inc. (Re) (1995), 34 C.B.R. (3d) 303 (Que. S.C.); and
730 Truck Stop Inc. (Re), 2012 ONSC 4535.
[58] In both of those cases, the court refused to grant an advance to the trustee for remuneration prior to taxation of the statement of receipts and disbursements.
[59] The OSB says that, while COVID-19 is an exceptional circumstance, it is not enough to warrant the orders requested by the Trustee.
[60] The OSB also argues that the motions were not brought on notice to creditors in the estates in question, who could in fact object to the amount of remuneration claimed by the trustee.
[61] The OSB is concerned that, if the motions granted, they could lead to an increased demand on the Court’s time for similar orders in other estates.
[62] Finally, the OSB argues that this matter is not urgent and therefore should not be dealt with at this time.
Analysis
[63] Directive 27R from the OSB is titled “Advance of Trustee’s Remuneration for Bankruptcies Under Ordinary Administration.” It was issued on February 10, 2010.
[64] The Directive reads as follows:
Issued: February 10, 2010
(Supersedes Directive No. 27 issued on August 14, 2009, on the same topic)
Interpretation
- In this Directive,
"Act" means the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act;
"OSB" means the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy;
"Rules" means the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules.
Authority and Purpose
This Directive is issued pursuant to the authority of paragraphs 5(4)(b) and (c) of the Act.
The purpose of this Directive is to set out the proper procedure the trustee must follow when making an interim withdrawal or withdrawing an advance on his or her remuneration for an ordinary administration bankruptcy.
Procedure
To withdraw an advance on his or her remuneration, the trustee must obtain proper authorization in the form of a resolution of a duly constituted meeting of creditors or of a majority of the inspectors or make application to the Court for an order approving payment of the advance.
The trustee must ensure that sufficient funds remain in the trust account to cover the disbursements and fees necessary to complete the administration of estates.
The request of the trustee for an advance shall stipulate the specific dollar amount, which should also be reflected in the minutes of the meeting of creditors or inspectors and/or in the Court Order.
(1) Trustees shall have in their file the following information for each authorized advance on the remuneration:
(a) number of hours worked;
(b) tasks performed;
(c) hourly rates;
(d) other factors for consideration in the calculation of fees; and
(e) resolution of a duly constituted meeting of creditors, resolution of a majority of the inspectors, or Court Order approving payment of the advance, whatever the case may be.
(2) Trustees shall remit a copy of the documents referred to in subparagraph 7(1) to the OSB at the time of filing the Final Statement of Receipts and Disbursements and to the registrar or taxing officer if and when there is a taxation hearing. Trustees must only remit a copy of the documents referred to in subparagraph 7(1) to the creditors upon request.
- (1) When a registrar or taxing officer taxes the remuneration of the trustee to an amount that is less than the advance withdrawn by the trustee, this excess shall be repaid to the estate without delay.
(2) The trustee must notify the official receiver in writing of the repayment or other changes due to the taxation.
- The registrar or taxing officer is not bound by this Directive and can exercise his or her discretion in relation to the taxation of the trustee's accounts.
Coming into Force
- This Directive comes into force on February 12, 2010.
Enquiries
- For any questions pertaining to this Directive, please contact your local OSB
[65] The BIA is a legislative roadmap enacted by Parliament to deal with bankruptcies and insolvencies. The OSB can and does issue directives to ensure consistency in the procedures, pursuant to section 5(4) of the BIA.
[66] Trustees are bound by and obliged to follow all directives issued by the OSB: see Re Clements (1990), 77 C.B.R. (N.S.) 232 (N.S.T.D.).
[67] The introduction to Directive 27R reads as follows:
The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) received a number of questions from various stakeholders regarding Directive No. 27, Advances of Trustee's Remuneration for Bankruptcies Under Ordinary Administration.
There was uncertainty in terms of the trustees' reporting obligations under paragraph 7 of the Directive. Specifically, subparagraph 7(1)(e) of Directive No. 27 referred to only one of the three ways in which a trustee can obtain proper authorization to withdraw an advance on his or her remuneration and the term "unless otherwise required"; in subparagraph 7(2) of the Directive was too vague and created unnecessary reporting obligations.
Directive No. 27 has been amended as follows:
(1) Subparagraph 7(1)(e) now reflects the three ways in which an advance on a trustee's remuneration may be approved (as provided for in paragraph 4 of the Directive):
(1) by a resolution of a duly constituted meeting of creditors;
(2) by a majority of the inspectors; or
(3) by a Court Order approving payment of the advance.
(2) Subparagraph 7(2) of the Directive now requires trustees to remit a copy of the documents referred to in subparagraph 7(1) to the OSB at the time of filing the Final Statement of Receipts and Disbursements and to the registrar or taxing officer if and when there is a taxation hearing. Trustees must only remit a copy of the documents referred to in subparagraph 7(1) to the creditors upon request.
[68] The Court has reviewed Directive 27R and notes that there are three ways in which an advance of trustee remuneration in ordinary administration bankruptcies can be made:
a resolution at a duly constituted meeting of creditors; or
a resolution of a majority of inspectors; or
making an application to court for an order approving of the payment of the advance.
[69] The Court notes that there is no requirement for trustees to either obtain a resolution of creditors at a duly constituted meeting of creditors or to obtain a resolution of the majority of inspectors prior to making an application to court to approve the payment of an advance.
[70] The Directive was designed to allow trustees to use any of the three methods to obtain advances. In fact, the preamble to the Directive states that, after clarification questions were received from various bankruptcy and insolvency stakeholders in relation to this issue, the Directive was amended to specifically clarify the issue of how trustees would obtain an advance of remuneration. The current version of Directive 27R is over 10 years old.
[71] The Court finds that an advance of remuneration is not a taxation of accounts. Courts must be satisfied, when a motion is brought under Directive 27R, that there is a basis for the trustee to claim the amount of the advance. A claim must comply with paragraph 7(1), which states the following:
- (1) Trustees shall have in their file the following information for each authorized advance on the remuneration:
(a) number of hours worked;
(b) tasks performed;
(c) hourly rates;
(d) other factors for consideration in the calculation of fees; and
(e) resolution of a duly constituted meeting of creditors, resolution of a majority of the inspectors, or Court Order approving payment of the advance, whatever the case may be.
[72] Once a trustee complies with these requirements, the court must examine the information and determine whether it is satisfied with it or not. It is at this point that the court exercises its discretion to either allow the advance or not. As stated previously, the relief, if granted, is not a taxation of the Trustee’s accounts.
[73] As mentioned above, the OSB cited two cases, Films Rachel Inc. (Re) and 730 Truck Stop Inc. (Re), in support of its position.
[74] In Films Rachel Inc., Re, the Court refused to grant interim remuneration to a trustee of a bankrupt estate in the amount of $39,225. The Court held that s. 25(1.3) BIA does not generally permit trustees to do indirectly what they cannot do directly—that is, receive remuneration until the administration of an estate is duly completed. The Court held that, as far as remuneration is concerned, a trustee’s work cannot be compared to private sector work in a free market. A trustee agrees to administer an estate on the basis that they will be paid pursuant to the provisions of the BIA. Those provisions provide for a fixed remuneration once administration is complete, and not at an hourly rate. However, in cases where the administration of the estate has lasted for a period of several years, leaving the trustee with a significant financial burden, s. 25(1.3) BIA has been used to grant remuneration prior to the end of an estate’s administration. In the case before the Court, however, the administration in question had lasted only 10 months and consisted of telephone conversations and correspondence totalling 167 hours, all at a fixed rate of $125-$300 an hour. Notably, the inspectors had purportedly refused to approve the interim remuneration requested, preferring instead that the decision be left up to the Court.
[75] The Court does not find that the aforesaid case is applicable.
[76] The Court notes that this case was decided before the current version of Directive 27R was issued. Directive 27R makes it clear that the three ways to obtain advances on remuneration are as set out therein.
[77] In 730 Truck Stop Inc. (Re), the Court refused to grant interim remuneration to a proposal trustee in the amount of $19,269.23 for a proposal that had, at that point, only spanned a few months. Notably, the motion in question had been brought without notice to the creditors. The Court acknowledged that interim remuneration for fees and disbursements had been granted to proposal trustees in the past. The Court was unwilling, however, to grant the request in the circumstances, where the creditors had not been given notice of the motion and where it was anticipated that many creditors would oppose such a request.
[78] The aforesaid case was a Division I Proposal and was not an ordinary bankruptcy under Directive 27R. The cases quoted in the 730 Truck Stop Inc. (Re) also dealt with proposals. The aforesaid cases can therefore be distinguished from the present case, as they are proposals and not ordinary bankruptcies.
[79] The OSB also argued that this matter was not urgent. The Court disagrees.
[80] Due to COVID-19, the Court finds that it is not practical for the Trustee to have to wait for the receipt of the OSB Letter of Comment and then proceed to taxation.
[81] According to the OSB and the Trustee, it will take approximately two to three months for the statement of receipts and disbursements to be prepared and forwarded to the OSB, who then has, under normal circumstances, 21 business days to provide the Letter of Comment. Thereafter, the Trustee would have to obtain a date to proceed to taxation.
[82] These are not normal times. The timelines for any of the steps outlined above could be much longer, considering the layoffs and stay at home orders that have been issued, including to the OSB staff.
[83] COVID-19 has affected every province and territory in Canada, as well as the rest of the world. At the present time, over 2.5 million people across the world have been infected and over 170,000 people have died.
[84] Close to 1 million Canadians have been laid off due to COVID-19.
[85] The Government of Canada has been providing assistance to Canadians through various programs, including the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. In addition, the provinces have also initiated their own relief packages for citizens and businesses. These programs and many others will allow Canadians and Canadian businesses access to funds that they desperately need.
[86] The Court must look at the situation as it presently exists and as it evolves on a daily basis, and make decisions accordingly.
[87] Businesses in all sectors of the economy have been laying people off. This includes the insolvency industry. Many of the businesses that are still operating are doing so with reduced staff. Those businesses are attempting to leverage their cash flow to continue their operations.
[88] The Court realizes that the decision made in these cases may lead to an influx of motions by trustees for advances of remuneration. Directive 27R provides for such advances.
[89] Furthermore, the Court finds that, due to COVID-19, an advance of fees is a reasonable way of dealing with the liquidity crunches currently being experienced. Even if there had been no COVID-19 pandemic, Directive 27R still provides for an advance of remuneration to a trustee by way of application to court.
[90] The Court is also aware that accounting practices, and thereby insolvency procedures, have been declared essential services in the Province of Ontario and most other provinces.
[91] The Court finds that licensed insolvency trustees must have the tools necessary to keep their operations running and to allow people and businesses to obtain relief under the BIA. The greater the cash flow that trustees have, the more laid off people will be brought back to work, and the less people will be unemployed and receiving government benefits. Unfortunately, in all likelihood, it is also the case that the insolvency industry will have to ramp up in order to meet the inevitable surge in insolvencies that will occur in the coming months and years.
[92] The Court finds that trustees need to be able to access the funds in their trust account that they have already earned as fees, inclusive of HST.
[93] Furthermore, the BIA in its current iteration has put safeguards in place for these situations. Pursuant to s. 152 and Directive 27R, trustees are required to repay money if they have taken more than they are entitled to for advances of remuneration.
[94] In light of the foregoing, this Court exercises its discretion and orders that the Trustee is authorized to withdraw 75% of the fees that have been earned and claimed to March 28, 2020, as well as the applicable HST on that 75%, on each of these four files prior to the taxation of the statement of receipts and disbursements.
[95] The Court also orders that the Trustee can only withdraw the balance of their fees, the applicable HST, and the applicable disbursements once the Trustee has completed the taxation process. This includes sending a notice to the creditors in accordance with s. 152(5) of the BIA and complying with s. 152(6) of the BIA.
[96] This holdback will be an incentive to trustees to close their files in a timely fashion in accordance with the BIA.
[97] The OSB argues that this Court’s approval should not be granted because it would side step a creditor’s objection to the amount of fees claimed. The Court rejects that argument. Section 152(5) and (6) of the BIA set out the procedure that a creditor must follow if they object to the final statement of receipts and disbursements, which occurs after the Trustee has taxed its accounts. The Court finds that approving the advance of remuneration to the Trustee in no way changes this procedure. Any trustee seeking to obtain advance remuneration without either requisite creditor or inspector approval can rightfully bring a motion to do so pursuant to Directive 27R.
[98] The advance of remuneration and HST is only allowed up to the date set out in each of the accounts, which is March 28, 2020.
[99] The Court orders that any fees or disbursements plus HST expended to obtain a court order for an advance of remuneration are considered non-recoverable overhead expenses, including those of the Trustee, their staff, their lawyers, paralegals or agents and are not to be included in any future claim for fees, disbursements, or HST in any statement of receipts and disbursements in the estate file, save and except the filing fee paid to the Province of Ontario to set down the motion.
Costs
[100] Costs were not sought on the motion by either party. Accordingly, there will be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous
[101] This endorsement will have the same effect as an order of the court from the moment it is released. At the same time, court orders will be required.
Conclusion
[102] Based on the aforesaid analysis, the Court orders that the remuneration advanced to the Trustee is as follows:
Estate Name
Trustees Advances Claimed
Trustees Advances Allowed at 75%
HST on Trustees Advances
Total Amount of Advances
Brian Baxter
Court File No. 33-1180700
$8,336.25
$6,252.19
$812.78
$7,064.97
Ermes Macorig
Court File No. 33-2440262
$21,545.00
$16,158.75
$2,100.64
$18,259.39
Donald Howard Simon Belanger
Court File No. 33-2282620
$10,105.00
$7,578.75
$985.24
$8,563.99
Michael Anderson
Court File No. 33-1291463
$10,625.96
$7,969.47
$1,036.03
$9,005.50
[103] The Court requests that the Trustee prepare draft orders on the aforesaid basis and provide them to the Court.
[104] Order accordingly.
Mr. Justice Stanley J. Kershman
Released: April 22, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: 33-1180700, 33-2440262, 33-2282620 and 33-1291463
DATE: 2020/04/22
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
IN BANKRUPTCY and INSOLVENCY
COURT FILE NO.: 33-1180700
IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF
BRIAN BAXTER
OF THE CITY OF IROQUOIS
IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 33-2440262
IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF
ERMES MACORIG
OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA
IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 33-2282620
IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF
DONALD HOWARD SIMON BELANGER
OF THE CITY OF BROCKVILLE
IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 33-1291463
IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF
MICHAEL ANDERSON
OF THE CITY OF RUSSELL
IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
BEFORE: Justice Stanley J. Kershman
HEARD IN OTTAWA: April 7, 2020 at Ottawa by Teleconference
APPEARANCE: Stanley Loiselle on behalf of Raymond Chabot Inc.
Alden Christian, Solicitor for Raymond Chabot Inc.
Mr. A. Bouvet-Frechette from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy
REASONS FOR DECISION
Kershman J.
Released: April 22, 2020