S. Thom

A secured creditor sought disclosure of financial information under a general security agreement and s. 18 of the Personal Property Security Act after the debtor and another secured party failed to provide requested information.

The proceeding ultimately resolved after undertakings were given during cross‑examination and the disclosure was substantially provided.

On a subsequent costs motion, the court held the respondents had unreasonably resisted disclosure and filed extensive irrelevant evidence to delay the proceeding.

The court found this conduct constituted reprehensible litigation behaviour warranting elevated costs.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant.

A secured creditor applied for judgment on a promissory note and the appointment of a receiver over the debtor company’s assets under a general security agreement.

The debtor alleged it had made advance payments toward the note and counter‑applied for the return of equipment seized by the creditor.

The court found the alleged payments were unrelated to the promissory note and that the debtor had defaulted on the required installment.

Because assets of the purchased company had been transferred contrary to the note’s terms, the entire debt became immediately due.

Judgment for $100,000 was granted, a receiver‑manager was appointed, and the debtor’s claim for return of seized equipment was dismissed.