S. Zeitz

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for a declaration that a judgment survived the respondents' bankruptcy, the successful respondents sought full indemnity costs.

The court declined to award costs, noting that the applicant had already lost the ability to collect a substantial debt due to the respondents' bankruptcy.

Relying on equitable principles and the 'fresh start' policy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Libro Credit Union brought a motion to determine a priority dispute over garnished funds.

Environmental Waterproofing Inc. had garnished funds from Jokey Plastics to satisfy a judgment against Huron Tract Holdings Inc. Libro claimed priority based on a perfected security interest under the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA).

Environmental argued that Libro's claim was statute-barred and would result in unjust enrichment.

The court found that Libro's security interest was deemed continuously perfected under the PPSA and took priority over the garnishment.

The court also held that Libro's claim was not statute-barred and that there was no unjust enrichment.

The garnished funds were ordered to be paid to Libro.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to set aside a consent order that struck her claims and required her to reconstitute them within 30 days.

The plaintiff's former lawyer had failed to inform her of the order or comply with the deadline due to health reasons.

The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice that could not be compensated by costs, and that the prejudice to the plaintiff in losing her substantive rights outweighed any prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was granted, the order was set aside, and the three related actions were consolidated.

A court-appointed receiver sought approval of an interim settlement with the judgment debtor and related parties concerning disputed ownership and realization of a cottage property during receivership proceedings.

The moving party, a judgment creditor, opposed the settlement, arguing that stronger litigation prospects justified pursuing a declaration that the debtor solely owned the property.

The court applied the principle that courts generally defer to a receiver’s commercially reasonable business judgment where the receiver has fully analyzed the circumstances and considered stakeholder interests.

Considering litigation risk, potential appeals, mounting receivership costs, lack of estate funding, and the need for timely recovery for creditors, the court found the settlement commercially reasonable.

The settlement was therefore approved.

In receivership proceedings brought in aid of execution against a judgment debtor, the court considered a motion by the court-appointed receiver for directions regarding enforcement steps and the disposition of certain assets.

The receiver sought approval to sell the debtor’s interest in a jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act, clarification regarding ownership of a cottage property, compliance with outstanding information requests, and approval of the receiver’s reports.

The court held that the spouse opposing sale failed to demonstrate circumstances of oppression, malice, or vexatious intent that would justify refusing the statutory right to partition or sale.

The court ordered the sale of the debtor’s interest in the matrimonial home, directed the parties to provide requested information to the receiver, scheduled a hearing regarding ownership of the cottage and related indebtedness issues, and approved the receiver’s reports.