Thank you for reading our Brandon's Blog. Check out our AI insolvency bot on this page and don't forget to subscribe!
If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Insolvent Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast
Introduction
On November 28, 2018, I published my Brandon’s Blog titled “INSOLVENT DEFINITION: A NEW FOCUS FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE”. I wrote about a then recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Kormos v. Fast, 2018 ONSC 6044 (CanLII). In that decision, the Judge gave a new twist on deciding whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Fast was insolvent.
If they were found to not be insolvent, their respective consumer proposal and bankruptcy filings would be annulled. In that event, Mr. and Mrs. Kormos would be able to continue enforcing their judgement against Mr. and Mrs. Fast. If unsuccessful in annulling the filings, then their only remedy would be to file a proof of claim in each insolvency proceeding. That would result in a payment far less than what might otherwise be available.
The lower court ruling
Mr. and Mrs. Kormos submitted evidence that the Fast’s assets had a value greater than their total liabilities. They submitted that therefore, Mr. and Mrs. Fast was not insolvent and should not have been able to file under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).
The evidence submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kormos was not challenged. However, the Judge seized upon the fact that the income and expense statement of each of Mr. and Mrs. Fast indicated that on a monthly basis, their income was much less than their expenses. The Judge, therefore, concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Fast was insolvent and their separate insolvency filings should not be annulled. Accordingly, he dismissed the application by Mr. and Mrs. Kormos.
The appeal
Mr. and Mrs. Kormos did not believe that this ruling was either fair or appropriate. Therefore, they appealed the Judge’s decision with respect to Mrs. Fast only to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. On May 23, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its unanimous decision in Kormos v. Fast, 2019 ONCA 430.
The position of Mr. and Mrs. Kormos was that the Judge erred in dismissing their application by not annulling Mrs. Fast’s assignment in bankruptcy and not deciding that her filing was a misuse of the bankruptcy procedure. They further submitted that therefore, the Judge legitimized an unjustified technique to protect the equity in Mrs. Fast’s home.
The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. and Mrs. Kormos. They stated that the lower court erred in failing to decide that Mrs. Fast was not an insolvent person. It is for that reason, it was not necessary for the Court of Appeal to decide if her filing was a misuse of the bankruptcy scheme and procedure.
The Court of Appeal Judges determined that on the day of her bankruptcy, Mrs. Fast was not an “insolvent person” as that term is specified under s. 2 of the BIA. Her assets substantially went beyond and were readily available to pay off all of her liabilities.
Apart from the unexplained regular monthly cash deficiency, there was no proof that she could not satisfy or had actually stopped paying her liabilities as they normally came due. Instead, the undisputed proof was that she could. The only single item submitted as proof of any kind of financial hardship was that Mrs. Fast had not paid the debt owed to Mr. and Mrs. Kormos under their judgement.
The Court’s power for bankruptcy annullment
Under s. 181(1) of the BIA, a court might annul a bankruptcy order if it feels that it ought not to have actually been made. An annulment will be approved where it is revealed either:
- the bankrupt was not an insolvent individual when he or she made the assignment in bankruptcy, or
- the bankrupt abused the procedure of the court or performed a fraud on his or her creditors.
What is an insolvent person?
Section 2 of the BIA specifies an “insolvent person” as:
“insolvent person means a person who is not bankrupt and who resides, carries on business or has property in Canada, whose liabilities to creditors provable as claims under this Act amount to one thousand dollars, and
(a) who is for any reason unable to meet his obligations as they generally become due,
(b) who has ceased paying his current obligations in the ordinary course of business as they generally become due, or
(c) the aggregate of whose property is not, at a fair valuation, sufficient, or, if disposed of at a fairly conducted sale under legal process, would not be sufficient to enable payment of all his obligations, due and accruing due;”
Mrs. Fast plainly did not meet any of the requirements to be considered insolvent. The lower court erred by ignoring Mrs. Fast’s capacity to satisfy her liabilities and her accessibility to considerable assets.
On the day of her bankruptcy, Mrs. Fast’s real value of her assets over her liabilities, including her share in the value of the real estate, was $417,581.24. The debt owing to Mr. and Mrs. Kormos under their judgement was $25,565.64 plus interest. Therefore, she definitely was not insolvent.
Out and out lies
Mrs. Fast was motivated to take the actions she did because Mr. and Mrs. Kormos was beginning to execute on their judgement and there was real value in the real estate to eventually get paid from. So, Mrs. Fast lied on her sworn statement of affairs she completed with her licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (LIT). She also manufactured an income and expense statement to show that on a cash basis, she suffered a monthly loss.
It is obvious that first, her LIT did insufficient work to establish the bona fides of the values Mrs. Fast used in her bankruptcy filing. Second, the lower court Judge ignored what should have been obvious. Mrs. Fast should not have been allowed to file an assignment in bankruptcy. At least now we are back to the tried and true definition of an insolvent person with clarity from the Ontario appellate court.
The Court of Appeal ordered the annulment of Mrs. Fast’s bankruptcy. They also awarded costs to Mr. and Mrs. Kormos on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $2,000, including disbursements and HST.
Are you insolvent?
Are you unable to pay your debts as they come due? Are your bills past due and you don’t know how you are going to pay them? Is the true value of your assets less than what you owe to your creditors? If so, then you are insolvent, and we can help end your pain and anxiety.
A LIT is the only insolvency expert accredited, licensed and supervised by the federal government to handle debt restructuring. As a LIT, our personalized strategy will assist you to know all your alternatives. The alternative you choose based on our recommendations will take away the stress and pain you are feeling because of your debt problems.
Nobody wants to visit a bankruptcy trustee. However, the Ira Smith Team has decades and generations of experience people and companies in financial trouble. We will treat you with the respect and dignity that you deserve. Whether it is a consumer proposal debt settlement plan, a larger personal or corporate restructuring proposal debt settlement plan, or as a last resort, bankruptcy, we have the experience.
Our approach for each file is to create a result where Starting Over, Starting Now takes place. This starts the minute you are at our front door. You’re simply one phone call away from taking the necessary steps to get back to leading a healthy, balanced hassle-free life.
Call us today for your free consultation, Starting Over, Starting Now.
