Re Thillanadarajah, 2026 ONSC 1395

Court File and Parties

Citation: Re Thillanadarajah, 2026 ONSC 1395 Court File No.: 32-2951857 Date: 2026-03-09

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

Re: In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Krishnathirurajan Thillanadarajah

Before: Associate Justice Rappos

Counsel: Solomon Fischoff, for Michael Yosher and 2748204 Ontario Inc. Dennis Crawford, for Vivian Pauline Bessel et al Jordan Goldblatt, for Dennis Crawford John Delo, representative of A. Farber & Partners Inc. Nitasha Malik, self-represented

Heard: October 30, 2025 (via Zoom)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1Krishnathirurajan Thillanadarajah filed an assignment in bankruptcy on June 6, 2023. In his statement of affairs he states that he previously operated 2758729 Ontario Inc. o/a Complete Home Comfort. The reasons given for his financial difficulties are “law suits arising out of business which ceased operating over 2 years ago. Fixed income is inadequate to defend the legal actions and pay debts”.

2Several actions have been brought against Mr. Thillanadarajah and other defendants where the plaintiffs allege that they are victims of a contractor/home renovation mortgage fraud scheme perpetrated by Mr. Thillanadarajah, Comfort Home, and others.

3Dennis Crawford represents a number of such plaintiffs. These plaintiffs (the “Moving Creditors”) have brought a motion for an order lifting the stay of proceedings pursuant to section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) to allow them to continue their actions as against Mr. Thillanadarajah.

4In support of their lift stay motion, the Moving Creditors filed an affidavit sworn on April 22, 2025 by Tristan Mathieson (the “First Mathieson Affidavit”), a law clerk employed by Crawford Lawyers.

5The First Mathieson Affidavit contains many paragraphs that discuss Michael Yosher and his company 2748204 Ontario Inc. operating as Flex Home Loans, and their alleged roles in the scheme. Mr. Yosher is a defendant in all but one of the actions where a lifting of the stay is sought by the plaintiffs. Flex Home Loans is a defendant in some of the actions.

6Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans were in attendance when the lift stay motion was before me and asked that the motion be adjourned to allow them to cross-examine Mr. Mathieson and bring a cross-motion to strike portions of the First Mathieson Affidavit. As set out in my Endorsement dated June 10, 2025, the lift stay motion was adjourned to allow for the scheduling of the hearing of the cross-motion.

7Mr. Yosher, Flex Home Loans, and Nitasha Malik, a paralegal who is said to have taken part in the scheme and is a defendant in certain of the actions, have confirmed that they do not take a position on the lift stay motion.

8Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans now bring a motion for an order:

(a) permitting them to examine Mr. Mathieson pursuant to section 163(2) of the BIA and subrule 14(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules;

(b) striking 12 paragraphs of the First Mathieson Affidavit, along with related exhibits;

(c) striking three paragraphs from a reply affidavit sworn by Mr. Mathieson on September 22, 2025 (the “Second Mathieson Affidavit”), along with related exhibits; and

(d) removing the documents from the public court record.

Proposed Examination of Mr. Mathieson

9Subsection 163(2) of the BIA provides as follows:

On the application to the court by the Superintendent, any creditor or other interested person and on sufficient cause being shown, an order may be made for the examination under oath, before the registrar or other authorized person, of the trustee, the bankrupt, an inspector or a creditor, or any other person named in the order, for the purpose of investigating the administration of the estate of any bankrupt, and the court may further order any person liable to be so examined to produce any books, documents, correspondence or papers in the person’s possession or power relating in all or in part to the bankrupt, the trustee or any creditor, the costs of the examination and investigation to be in the discretion of the court [emphasis added].

10An order under subsection 163(2) is a discretionary one. To succeed, the applicant must demonstrate something amiss with the estate or its administration; the party sought to be examined might reasonably be expected to shed some light on that which is amiss; and the applicant has provided evidence to demonstrate that the examination is neither frivolous nor oppressive, is for the general benefit of the creditors and involves the general administration of the bankrupt’s estate.¹

11For leave to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the person sought to be examined has a factual connection to the bankruptcy estate and estate issues and is one who may be able to shed light on those issues.²

12Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans also rely on subrule 14(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules, which provides that “a party to any court proceedings may, with leave of the court, require the attendance of any person for examination on an affidavit that the person filed with the court”.

13The decision whether to grant leave to examine is discretionary. Leave will typically only be granted where it is in the interest of justice for the examination.³

14Mr. Yosher’s evidence is that: (a) “it is clear from a review of the pleadings in each case that Mr. Crawford and/or Mr. Mathieson have more information with respect to Mr. Thillanadarajah than what they have disclosed in the Mathieson Affidavit”; (b) “it would benefit the administration of the estate for the court to have further information with respect to the allegations as against the bankrupt and I verily believe that such information would be necessary in order to grant the relief sought on the Creditors’ Motion in any event”; and (c) Mr. Mathieson “clearly has held himself out as a person with knowledge of the allegations of a fraudulent scheme on the part of the bankrupt and such information is relevant and necessary for granting the relief sought by the creditors”.⁴

15It is not necessary for me to determine whether Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans qualify as “interested persons” under subsection 163(2) or a “party” under subrule 14(2), since even if they do fall under such terms, they have failed to show sufficient cause that the proposed examination will in any way benefit the administration of the bankruptcy estate, and failed to show that an examination would be in the interests of justice.

16I have read the Mathieson affidavits in their entirety. The references in the First Mathieson Affidavit to Mr. Thillanadarajah are that civil actions have been commenced against him by the plaintiffs (para. 2), that he delivered two statements of defence (para. 3), that Mr. Thillanadarajah and Complete Home Comfort were part of the contractor/home renovation mortgage fraud scheme (para. 4), that Mr. Thillanadarajah incorporated Complete Home Comfort and was the sole director (para. 5 and 6), and that Mr. Thillanadarajah and Complete Home Comfort were recipients of funds (paras. 10 and 11). There are no references to Mr. Thillanadarajah and Complete Home Comfort in the paragraphs at issue in the Second Mathieson Affidavit.

17One of the key purposes of the BIA is to provide a regime where the assets of the bankrupt can be realized in an orderly and fair manner and distributed to creditors on an equitable basis. There is no suggestion in the Mathieson affidavits that Mr. Mathieson has any personal knowledge as to the property and assets of Mr. Thillanadarajah that would serve to benefit the administration of the bankruptcy estate and assist the trustee in satisfying its duty to make the maximum realization of Mr. Thillanadarajah’s property and assets in the bankruptcy estate.

18In reading the Mathieson affidavits, I interpret Mr. Mathieson’s statements to be drawn from and based on the exhibits that are appended to his affidavits. There is nothing in the statements in the affidavits, and Mr. Mathieson’s role as a law clerk for counsel to alleged victims of the scheme, that reasonably can lead to the conclusion that Mr. Mathieson may have personal information concerning Mr. Thillanadarajah’s role in the scheme and his relationship with other parties that would benefit the administration of the bankruptcy estate.

19In my view, Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans seek to examine Mr. Mathieson for their own purposes unrelated to the administration of the bankruptcy estate. I fail to see how an examination of Mr. Mathieson would in any way be for the “general interest and for the demonstrable general benefit of creditors”.⁵

20As a result, their motion for leave to examine Mr. Mathieson is hereby dismissed.

Request to Strike Paragraphs of the Mathieson Affidavits

21Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans ask the Court to strike paragraphs 7 through 11, and 13 through 19 of the First Mathieson Affidavit, along with the exhibits attached in connection with these paragraphs (Exhibits “E” through “H” and “J” through “O”), and paragraphs 3 through 6 of the Second Mathieson Affidavit, along with the exhibits attached in connection with these paragraphs (Exhibits “A” through “D”).

22The following is a summary of the paragraphs and exhibits at issue in the First Mathieson Affidavit:

(a) paragraph 7 – describes Mr, Yosher’s alleged registration of mortgages in favour of Flex Home Loans. Exhibit “E” is a corporate profile report for Flex Home Loans;

(b) paragraph 8 – describes litigation that has resulted from the mortgages, and the homeowners that are the subject of the mortgages. Exhibit “F” is a spreadsheet that details some of the mortgages;

(c) paragraph 9 – details the terms of the mortgages and their registration by Mr. Yosher, and how the mortgages were assigned a short time after they were registered;

(d) paragraph 10 – describes amounts that Complete Home Comfort allegedly received in connection with the mortgages;

(e) paragraph 11 – describes an outgoing wire payment from Flex Home Loans to Complete Home Comfort, and a bank draft receipt made out to Complete Home Comfort. Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibits “G” and “H”;

(f) paragraph 13 – details assignments of the mortgages by Flex Home Loans. Copies of assignment instruments are attached as Exhibit “J”;

(g) paragraph 14 – details Mr. Yosher’s execution of the assignments and says that he is not a lawyer but was a mortgage agent. It notes that his mortgage license has expired and is inactive. Exhibit “L” is a copy of his license information from the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (“FSRA”);

(h) paragraph 15 – describes that the homeowners were visited by unexpected and uninvited individuals, and that the homeowners were put on a videocall with Ms. Malik;

(i) paragraph 16 – details the script that Ms. Malik allegedly used on each of the videocalls with the homeowners;

(j) paragraph 17 – details the duration of the videocalls, and states that Ms. Malik invoiced Flex Home Loans for each of the videocalls. Exhibit “M” are copies of invoices from Ms. Malik to Flex Home Loans;

(k) paragraph 18 – describes screenshots of the homeowners, taken from Ms. Malik’s videorecords, which are attached as Exhibit “N”; and

(l) paragraph 19 – describes an application commenced by the Law Society of Ontario regarding Ms. Malik’s conduct, in which they allege that Ms. Malik breached rules and provided legal services outside the scope of her license concerning the real estate mortgage loans. Exhibit “O” is a copy of the notice of application.

23The following is a summary of the paragraphs and exhibits at issue in the Second Mathieson Affidavit:

(a) paragraph 3 – describes enforcement proceedings brought by FSRA against Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans in connection with, among others, the mortgage transactions at issue in the claims of the plaintiffs. Exhibit “A” contains copies of a notice of proposal issued by FSRA and a FSRA news release;

(b) paragraph 4 – describes a chart listing civil litigation commenced against Flex Home Loans since 2022, and details two additional proceeding that previously were not referenced in the First Mathieson Affidavit. The paragraph also describes how Mr. Mathieson became aware of the two proceedings. Exhibit “B” is an updated chart. Exhibit “C” is a copy of an application record for one of the proceedings;

(c) paragraph 5 – describes the mortgage charges registered by Mr. Yosher that were detailed in the First Mathieson Affidavit, and attaches copies of the charges as Exhibit “D”; and

(d) paragraph 6 – details an update to the discussion of mortgage assignments in the First Mathieson Affidavit and adds additional information regarding two assignments.

24Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans argue that paragraphs of the affidavit are irrelevant to the determination of the lift stay motion and are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, and that the paragraphs are a collateral attack on the deemed undertaking rule, rule 30.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans also question whether Mr. Crawford has authority from certain plaintiffs to bring the lift stay motion, as such plaintiffs may lack capacity to give instructions to Mr. Crawford.

Paragraphs are Irrelevant to the Lift Stay Motion

25Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans rely on subrule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that the Court may strike out or expunge all or party of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or is an abuse of process of the court.

26Subrule 25.11 is applicable here, since as provided for in rule 3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules, the courts shall apply their ordinary procedure to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the BIA or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules where things are not provided for in the BIA or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules. The issue of striking contents of documents is not dealt with in the BIA or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules, and I do not see how rule 25.11 is in any way inconsistent with the statute and rules.

27The reference to “other document” in subrule 25.11 has been interpreted to include an affidavit.⁶

28Relief under subrule 25.11 should only be granted in the clearest of cases where part or all of the pleading is irrelevant, argumentative, or inserted for colour, or the pleading is made up of bald allegations or is embarrassing or prejudicial to the fair trial of an action.⁷

29Having reviewed the paragraphs at issue in the First Mathieson Affidavit and Second Mathewson Affidavit, along with the exhibits, I agree with Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans that they are irrelevant and must be struck.

30The First Mathieson Affidavit was filed in support of the Moving Creditors’ motion to lift the stay of proceedings as against Mr. Thillanadarajah pursuant to section 69.4 of the BIA. To obtain a lifting of the stay, the Moving Creditors must satisfy the Court that they are likely to be materially prejudiced by the continuance of the stay, or that it is equitable on other grounds that the stay be lifted.

31In considering an application for leave, the function of the Bankruptcy Court is not to inquire into the merits of the action to be commenced, but to ensure that sound reasons, consistent with the scheme of the BIA, exist for relieving against the otherwise automatic stay.⁸ There is well established case law in Ontario that provide examples of sound reasons to lift the stay, which include that the action against the bankrupt is for a debt to which a discharge would not be a defence, and actions in which the bankrupt is a necessary party for the complete adjudication of the matters at issue involving the other parties.⁹

32I fail to see how the paragraphs at issue in the Mathieson affidavits in any way are relevant to the lift stay motion being brought by the Moving Creditors as against Mr. Thillanadarajah. The paragraphs are solely focused on the role that Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans allegedly played in the scheme. Mr. Thillanadarajah’s is only referenced in passing in two of the paragraphs, and that’s solely to say that Complete Home Comfort allegedly received money from Flex Home Loans.

33The paragraphs in question in no way assist the Moving Creditors in arguing that there are sound reasons to lift the stay. They are focused on other defendants in the litigation. The removal of the paragraphs would not, in my view, impact the argument that the Moving Creditors wish to make on their lift stay motion. An example of the lack of relevance of these paragraphs can be found in the fact that the factum filed by the Moving Creditors in support of the lift stay motion fails to mention Mr. Yosher or Flex Home Loans.

34In my view, the paragraphs dealing with Mr. Yosher, Flex Home Loans and Ms. Malik, and the various exhibits attached dealing with regulatory proceedings and mortgages registered by Mr. Yosher in favour of Flex Home Loans, among other exhibits, are wholly irrelevant to the lift stay motion, and as a result must be struck as being scandalous, frivolous or vexatious under subrule 25.11.

Breach of Deemed Undertaking Rule

35Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans argue that certain of the documents attached to the Mathieson Affidavit were obtained by Mr. Crawford from Ms. Malik during discoveries in one of the actions where Ms. Malik is a defendant in this action. They say the use of these documents in support of the Moving Creditors’ lift stay motion is in breach of rule 30.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the deemed undertaking rule.

36I do not believe a motion before the Bankruptcy Court is the correct forum to seek such relief. If Mr. Yosher, Flex Home Loans, and/or Ms. Malik believe that there have been breaches of the deemed undertaking rule by the plaintiffs in a civil action, they should seek relief for such breach in the proper forum – the relevant civil action.

37A registrar in bankruptcy presiding over matters in a bankruptcy proceeding is not the proper judicial official to make determinations as to whether there have been breaches of the Rules of Civil Procedure in civil actions.

38As a result, I decline to render a ruling on whether the Moving Creditors have breached the deemed undertaking rule.

Authority to Bring the Motions

39Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans question whether Mr. Crawford has the authority to bring a lift stay motion on behalf of certain of the Moving Creditors. They have filed information from the civil proceedings that suggest that certain of the plaintiffs may not have legal capacity to provide instructions to counsel.

40As I have already determined that the paragraphs of the Mathieson affidavits should be struck under subrule 25.11, it is not necessary for me to rule on this issue.

Remove Affidavits from Public Record

41Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans ask that the Court direct that the offending materials not form part of the public record. They rely on subsection 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, which provides that the Court may order that any document filed in a civil proceeding before it be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public record. Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans rely on the test for the granting of a sealing order as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance).

42I refuse to grant a sealing order for the following two reasons. First, the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction establishes a procedure for a party to request a sealing order/publication ban. Section 117 of the Direction provides that the moving party must give notice to the media of the motion using the procedure set out in the Direction. There is nothing before me that suggests that the procedure has been followed by Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans.

43Secondly, Mr. Yosher’s and Flex Home Loans’ reliance on Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) is misplaced and outdated. The test for determining whether a sealing order should be granted was re-established by the Supreme Court in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25. That is the governing precedent for sealing orders, not Sierra Club.

44As a result, as Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans have failed to follow the required procedure for requesting a sealing order, and as they have failed to cite the applicable Supreme Court precedent for granting a sealing order, I am hereby dismissing their motion. However, the dismissal is without prejudice to Mr. Yosher and Flex Home Loans bringing back the motion after following the proper procedure and filing a factum that applies the correct Supreme Court precedent.

Disposition and Costs

45For the reasons set out above, Mr. Yosher’s and Flex Home Loans’ motion for leave to examine Mr. Mathieson is dismissed, their motion to strike paragraphs from the First Mathieson Affidavit and Second Mathieson Affidavit and related exhibits is granted, and their motion for a sealing order/publication ban is dismissed without prejudice to them bringing the motion back on.

46I strongly urge the parties to come to a resolution on the issue of costs. If they are unable to do so, they may contact the Bankruptcy Court Office to receive my directions on the exchange of written cost submissions.

Associate Justice Rappos

Footnotes

1. 1Ottewell v. Davidson, 2020 ONSC 1379, paras. 39-40.
2. 2Ellis, Re, 2013 SKQB 225, para. 6.
3. 3Farm Credit Canada v. Gidda, 2015 BCCA 236, paras. 21-22.
4. 4Excerpts from paragraphs 10, 11, and 19 of the Affidavit of Michael Yosher sworn June 5, 2025.
5. 5Re Assaf, 1976 CarswellOnt 84, para. 6.
6. 6York Condominium Corporation No. 21 v. All Unit Owners and Mortgagees of Record of York Condominium Corporation No. 21, 2021 ONSC 4600, para. 8.
7. 7John v. Dallas, 2019 ONSC 5084, para. 27.
8. 8Ma, Re, 2001 24076 (ON CA), 2001 CarswellOnt 1019, paras. 2-3.
9. 9Advocate Mines Ltd., Re, 1984 CarswellOnt 156.