This motion concerned whether a debt arising from a consent judgment, obtained by M.O.S. MortgageOne Solutions Ltd. (MOS) against William Heidary, would survive Heidary's discharge from bankruptcy under sections 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), and whether the bankruptcy stay should be lifted.
MOS argued that the underlying amended statement of claim pleaded fraud and invoked BIA s. 178(1)(d), and that Heidary's consent to judgment merged these issues into the judgment, making it a debt not released by bankruptcy.
Heidary contended that fraud was not proven and the judgment made no explicit reference to its survival post-bankruptcy.
The court found that the underlying pleadings, which clearly raised fraud and the applicability of s. 178(1)(d), were sufficient for the debt to survive bankruptcy, even without explicit mention in the consent judgment.
The court granted the declarations sought by MOS.
