T. Hanrahan

The bankrupt applied for a discharge from bankruptcy, which was opposed by his primary creditor.

The opposing creditor held a default judgment against the bankrupt for breach of contract, representing nearly 80% of the proven claims.

The court found that the bankrupt made the assignment in bankruptcy specifically to defeat the opposing creditor's judgment.

Applying the principles for bankruptcy discharge, the court refused an absolute discharge and instead granted a conditional discharge, requiring the bankrupt to pay $10,000 and undertake not to incur unsecured debt for five years.

The applicant, a municipal councilor, sought to add the Integrity Commissioner as a respondent to his application for judicial review of a decision imposing penalties for his participation in the Freedom Convoy.

The motion was brought months after the 30-day limitation period under the Judicial Review Procedures Act had expired.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a cogent explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate apparent grounds for relief, as the Commissioner's findings regarding the unlawfulness of the demonstration and the applicant's breaches of the Code of Conduct were reasonable.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to compel a non-party insurer to produce exhibits and surveillance from a related FSCO arbitration, and to compel the plaintiff to attend a further examination for discovery.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that production would violate his privacy rights and international law.

The court granted the motion, finding that the documents were relevant to the plaintiff's claim of catastrophic impairment and that the Privacy Act did not apply to private companies.

The court also ordered further discovery due to an important change in facts regarding the plaintiff's medical condition.

The Children's Aid Society moved for summary judgment on an application for Crown wardship with access for a 12-year-old child with high needs.

The child had been in care due to the mother's health issues and the child's challenging behaviours.

The court found that the mother lacked the resources to care for the child and that no placement short of permanent foster care was viable.

Summary judgment was granted for Crown wardship with access to maintain the child's relationship with her family.

Following a previous endorsement, the court received written submissions on costs.

The plaintiffs/respondents requested substantial indemnity costs, which were unchallenged by the defendants/applicants.

The court fixed costs of the motion payable to the plaintiffs in the amount of $10,173.00 all-inclusive.