Tag: annul

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

LICENSED INSOLVENCY TRUSTEES: CAN MY BASIC BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE BE REVERSED?

licensed insolvency trusteesIf you would prefer to listen to an audio version of this licensed insolvency trustees Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast.

Licensed insolvency trustees introduction

From time to time I am asked an interesting question about licensed insolvency trustees and the bankruptcy process. The question is, can a bankruptcy discharge be reversed? The simple answer is, yes.

Most people then wonder how this could be possible. In order to understand how we should have a discussion of the bankruptcy discharge process. The best way is through a recent Court case I recently read.

Licensed insolvency trustees: The discharge process

It is the discharge when the person’s debts are erased. The debts are not “discharged” until that time. In order to get a discharge, the bankrupt has to live up to all of his or her duties.

The duties of a bankrupt include:

  • make disclosure of and deliver possession of all his or her assets (other than for certain provincial exemptions) that is under his or her possession or control to the licensed insolvency trustee (Trustee) or to anyone the Trustee so directs;
  • in such scenarios as are defined by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, provide to the Trustee, for termination, all credit cards;
  • supply to the Trustee all documents or files relating to the property of the person who has filed for bankruptcy;
  • make full disclosure of all assets and liabilities to the Trustee by completing the sworn statement of affairs within 5 days of the date of bankruptcy;
  • assist the Trustee in making an inventory of all property; make full disclosure to the Trustee concerning all property sold or otherwise transferred within 1 year prior to the date of bankruptcy;
  • disclose any property sold or transferred at undervalue within 5 years prior to the date of filing;
  • attend the first meeting of creditors if held;
  • disclose current income and expense and continue monthly disclosure until discharged in order for the Trustee to calculate any surplus income requirement;
  • if there is surplus income, to make all such payments to the Trustee in full; and
  • to perform any other acts required by the Trustee or the Court, including, fulfilling any conditions of discharge issued by the Court.

Failure to perform any of the duties laid out in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA), will result in the Trustee, and perhaps one or more creditors, opposing the bankrupt’s discharge. When there is an opposition, the Trustee will schedule a Court hearing date.

At the Court hearing, the Court can issue an absolute order of discharge, provide a discharge but with conditions to be fulfilled or even suspend the bankrupt’s discharge. Sometimes, there may be both a condition and a suspension, depending on the circumstances. In rare and bad circumstances, the Court could even refuse to hear the bankrupt’s application for discharge. Licensed insolvency trustees are expected to assist the Court by making a recommendation.llicensed insolvency trustees

Mark Daniel MacFarlane bankruptcy

Section 180 (1) and (2) of the BIA states:

“Court may annul discharge

180 (1) Where a bankrupt after his discharge fails to perform the duties imposed on him by this Act, the court may, on the application, annul his discharge.

Annulment of discharge obtained by fraud

(2) Where it appears to the court that the discharge of a bankrupt was obtained by fraud, the court may, on the application, annul his discharge.”

On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia In Bankruptcy and Insolvency released its decision in the bankruptcy case of Mark Daniel MacFarlane (Citation: MacFarlane (Re), 2019 NSSC 201).

This case is not complex. However, it does clearly shows that the answer to the question, “can a bankruptcy discharge be reversed?” is clearly yes.

Mr. MacFarlane had a surplus income obligation to pay to the Trustee for the benefit of his creditors the amount of $3,823.05. At the time he was entitled to a discharge, he still owed the Trustee the amount of $2,879.05. In every personal bankruptcy, licensed insolvency trustees must do the surplus income calculation. If it turns out that the bankruptcy is required to contribute to his or her bankruptcy estate through surplus income payments, licensed insolvency trustees must report to the Court if the bankrupt made all the required payments.

The bankrupt also owned at the date of bankruptcy, an automobile that the Trustee estimated had a forced liquidation value of $17,500. The Trustee had disallowed the claim of a creditor claiming security over the vehicle. That creditor did not appeal the Trustee’s decision.

So, equity in the vehicle was available. In such cases, licensed insolvency trustees must obtain that value. For some reason that the Trustee could not fully explain, he agreed to sell the vehicle to Mr. MacFarlane for $15,702.50 plus HST. The Trustee did not sell it for all cash, but rather, entered into a conditional sale agreement with the bankrupt. In other words, the Trustee gave him financing.

Mr. MacFarlane paid made various payments totalling $7,040.00, both before and after his discharge, leaving a balance of $8,662.50.

Mark Daniel MacFarlane discharge

Although now stated explicitly in the Court decision, it appears that when it came time for Mr. MacFarlane’s application for discharge, the Trustee opposed it. On June 1, 2018, the Trustee applied for his discharge.

For some unexplained reason, the Trustee decided to not collect the balance of the surplus income requirement. The Trustee asked the Court for his outright discharge. The Court gave Mr. MacFarlane his absolute discharge.

So now the bankrupt is discharged, but he still owed the outstanding money for the vehicle that was sold to him by the Trustee under a conditional sale agreement. Rather than paying off the amount owing, Mr. MacFarlane sold the vehicle out of province and pocketed the cash.llicensed insolvency trustees

Licensed insolvency trustees can apply to Court to have a discharge reversed

So now the Trustee makes an application to Court to have Mr. MacFarlane’s discharge reversed. Officially, it is called having the discharge annulled. An annulment makes it as if the discharge never happened. So, if the Trustee is successful, Mr. MacFarlane will be back in bankruptcy. The Trustee also asked that the Court order the payment of the balance of what is owing on the vehicle, for a suspension of the discharge and an amount for costs and disbursements. Mr. MacFarlane represented himself in Court.

The Court was not overly impressed with either Mr. MacFarlane or the Trustee. The Court felt that not did he fail to carry out his responsibilities under the BIA, he actually acted in such a way to deny himself the advantage of any type of latitude the Court might have given him relative to those obligations.

The Court went on to say that his responsibilities under the BIA are not pointers or activities to be carried out when convenient or if life does not get in the way. It was obviously not his place to choose what he would and would not do. Concerning the automobile, it was not his to just sell it, pocket the cash, and tell the Trustee (and by extension his creditors) to go take a hike.

The Court was not too happy with the Trustee

The Court was at a loss to some of the Trustee’s behaviour also. There was no explanation given as to why the Trustee merely gave up on collecting all of the surplus income requirement. Likewise, there was no explanation why the Trustee would have given the bankrupt a discount off of the liquidation value of the vehicle. Such a look is not good for licensed insolvency trustees.

Quite rightly, the Court pointed out that in such situation, licensed insolvency trustees, and specifically this Trustee, should not have recommended to the Court that Mr. MacFarlane receive an absolute order of discharge. Rather, the Trustee should have insisted on a conditional order of discharge. The conditions would have been that the bankrupt pay off both the surplus income balance and the amount owing on the vehicle before being entitled to an absolute order of discharge.llicensed insolvency trustees

The Court’s decision

The Court ordered that:

  1. Mr. MacFarlane’s discharge from bankruptcy be annulled, so now he is once again an undischarged bankrupt.
  2. He must pay the Trustee the $8,662.50 owing on the vehicle.
  3. The Trustee will collect $500 for disbursements in tracing what happened to the vehicle from Mr. MacFarlane also.
  4. There will not be an automatic discharge once he pays the $9,162.50 to the Trustee. Rather, the bankrupt will have to apply to the Court for his discharge and there will be another discharge hearing.
  5. Since the Court was not asked to revisit the balance owing on surplus income, the Court didn’t review that again.
  6. The request of the Trustee for $5,000 as a censure of the bankrupt’s behaviour was denied. The Court said that this situation was caused in part by the Trustee allowing the surplus income requirement to be waived and agreeing to an absolute discharge.

Although not part of the Order, the Court strongly stated that any costs in the additional work done by the Trustee now, and the disposition of the amount to be received once finally paid, will be reviewed by the Court.

The Court emphatically intimated that since the Trustee’s actions were in part to blame for this situation, the Court was going to make sure that part of the $9,162.50 will go to the creditors when the Trustee comes back to Court to have its accounts taxed.

Licensed insolvency trustees conclusion

So there you have it on licensed insolvency trustees. Can a bankruptcy discharge be reversed or revoked? As we see in this case if the discharge was improperly obtained because the bankrupt did not fulfill all of his or her duties, YES. Similarly, if it can be shown that a discharge was obtained through fraud or fraudulent conduct, the discharge can be annulled in that case also.

Whenever I sit down with a person to talk about his or her insolvency, or with an owner of a company to discuss business financial problems, I make sure that we have an entire discussion. I not only talk to them about what process I recommend for their unique situation, but I also walk them through the entire process and what all the rights and responsibilities are. For personal insolvency, this includes the discharge process.

Are you or your business experiencing money troubles? Are you on the verge of bankruptcy? Do not wait till it is far too late to understand how you can restructure your financial affairs and avoid bankruptcy. You do not need to be one more person or company declaring bankruptcy in Canada.

As licensed insolvency trustees, we are the only specialists certified, accredited and overseen by the federal government to provide insolvency guidance and to apply remedies under the BIA. We will certainly help you to choose what is best for you to release you from your debt problems.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so we can get rid you of the stress, anxiety, pain and discomfort that your money issues have created. With the distinct roadmap, we establish simply for you, we will without delay return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life, Starting Over Staring Now. Call the Ira Smith Team today.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CONSUMER PROPOSAL CALCULATOR REVIEW FOR YOU

consumer proposal calculator

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this consumer proposal calculator Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the podcast

Introduction

A consumer proposal calculator is important to figure out what sort of debt settlement plan should be offered to your creditors. But to have a truly successful one, you really need clear language. In Brandon’s Blog, I review a recent court case that explains why.

Shelly Gail Corriveau bankruptcy

I recently read the Reasons for Decision dated June 13, 2019 by Registrar in Bankruptcy L.A. Smart of Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. This case is in the matter of the bankruptcy of Shelly Gail Corriveau. The case reference is Corriveau (Re), 2019 ABQB 438 (CanLII).

Ms. Corriveau filed an assignment in bankruptcy in April 2012. She had unsecured creditors of roughly $73,000. The reason for her insolvency was stated as offering monetary help to her child’s business. She was by all accounts a perfect example of an honest but unfortunate debtor. At the time of the bankruptcy, her only asset was her house.

In June 2012, Ms. Corriveau got a gift from her mom of $46,000. It featured instructions that $6,000 of those funds be utilized for children and certain other matters. She spent the $6,000 as instructed, with the balance of the $40,000 being paid to her licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) (the Trustee) for the benefit of her creditors.

The home was sold in October 2012. From the sale, she received her provincial exemption of $40,000 with the balance of $3,916.21 being paid to her bankruptcy estate.

Ms. Corriveau files a consumer proposal

On May 12, 2013, Ms. Corriveau advised her Trustee she had received an inheritance of $15,000 from her Mother’s estate. On May 26, 2013, Ms. Corriveau submitted a consumer proposal. The Trustee served as the Administrator of the consumer proposal.

The proposal in paragraph 4 states:

“4. That the following payments be made to [Name omitted to not embarrass the guilty] Trustee in Bankruptcy, the administrator of the consumer proposal, for the benefit of the unsecured creditors:

Proposal payments to total $10,000.00. The of (sic) funds will be provided to the Administrator as follows – $300.00 filing fee to be paid at time of filing and then a lump sum payment of $9,700.00 due 60 days after the proposal is court approved (all payments to be made within the 60 months proposal period)

The debtor reserves the right to accelerate payments should funds become available.

*** NOTE *** – There will be a significant dividend paid from the bankruptcy administration.”

In accordance with the requirements of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA), the consumer proposal Canada read that the payments must be completed within 60 months.

The Trustee recommended acceptance of the proposal. In his report to creditors he stated:

“This proposal will provide the debtor with relief and allow the debtor’s affairs to be restructured in an orderly fashion. It will allow the debtor to annul her bankruptcy and provide for a greater return to the creditors when compared to the bankruptcy option.”

The consumer proposal was deemed accepted by the creditors and approved by the Court. Ms. Corriveau made all the required payments and received her Certificate of Full Performance on August 2, 2013.

Have you “Noted” the problem yet?

Under the BIA, a bankrupt is allowed to lodge a proposal with the Trustee; either a consumer proposal or a Division I Proposal. In either format, it is a debt settlement plan that the bankrupt is proposing for acceptance by the debtor’s creditors. By definition, if the proposal is fully carried out, then the person or company’s bankruptcy is annulled.

When bankruptcy is annulled, it is declared to have had no legal existence. It is as if it never happened. The annulment of the bankruptcy takes place upon the approval or deemed approved by the court of the consumer proposal. There will never be a distribution to the creditors from the bankruptcy administration. The Trustee, in this case, did not issue any funds from the bankruptcy, yet.

So the Note that the Trustee added, “There will be a significant dividend paid from the bankruptcy administration.” is problematic. Actually, it is more than problematic. It is just plain wrong.

Now the Trustee wishes to complete the bankruptcy administration. The Trustee submits its Statement of Receipts and Disbursements as required to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) for approval. This issue came before the Court because of the OSB’s unfavourable comment letter dated June 15, 2018.

The Court’s analysis

Section 66.4(2) of the BIA states:

“Where consumer debtor is bankrupt

(2) Where a consumer proposal is made by a consumer debtor who is a bankrupt,

(a) the consumer proposal must be approved by the inspectors, if any, before any further action is taken thereon;

(b) the consumer debtor must have obtained the assistance of a trustee who shall act as administrator of the proposal in the preparation and execution thereof;

(c) the time with respect to which the claims of creditors shall be determined is the time at which the consumer debtor became bankrupt; and

(d) the approval or deemed approval by the court of the consumer proposal operates to annul the bankruptcy and to revest in the consumer debtor, or in such other person as the court may approve, all the right, title and interest of the trustee in the property of the consumer debtor, unless the terms of the consumer proposal otherwise provide.”

There is a similar provision for Division I Proposals.

The Court looked at the:

  • Statute
  • wording of the consumer proposal
  • Trustee’s report to the creditors on the consumer proposal; and the
  • Trustee’s actions in administering the proposal.

The Court had to decide if the Note was a term of the proposal or not. The Registrar took all factors into consideration, including that the Trustee issued to Ms. Corriveau the certificate evidencing full completion of the proposal upon her payment of $10,000.

The Registrar decided that the Note was an unfortunate error and that the only intention was for the creditors to share in the distribution from the consumer proposal with a gross value of $10,000.

Now for the treatment of the funds collected by the Trustee under the bankruptcy that is now annulled. The Registrar further concluded that consumer proposals that purport to also include a distribution from the funds held in the bankruptcy administration, must include clear and precise language in the proposal. The Registrar said that the Trustee failed to do so.

Therefore, the Registrar concluded that subject to any entitlement to fees by the Trustee from the bankruptcy administration, the funds held in the annulled bankruptcy are Ms. Corriveau’s property and should be returned to her. Costs of the application will be dealt with at the taxation of the Trustee’s account. The Trustee was directed to arrange a suitable date for that taxation to proceed before that Registrar.

Consumer proposal calculator summary

A proposal must offer the creditors a better result than what they would get in a person or company’s bankruptcy. So although a consumer proposal calculator is important, I think clear language is more important.

Are you in financial distress? Do you not have sufficient funds to pay your commitments as they come due?

Call the Ira Smith Team today so we can remove the anxiety, stress, pain and discomfort from your life that your money troubles have created. With the distinctive roadmap, we establish simply for you, we will quickly return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

As a Trustee, we are the only experts recognized, licensed and supervised by the federal government to give insolvency recommendations and to carry out insolvency procedures. A consumer proposal is a federal government authorized debt negotiation strategy to do that. We will assist you to choose what is best for you to rid yourself of your debt problems.

Call the Ira Smith Team today. We have years as well as generations of experience helping people and companies searching for debt restructuring, a debt negotiation strategy, or a consumer proposal Ontario to AVOID bankruptcy. You can have a no-cost evaluation so we can aid you to repair your financial problems. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will let you return to a brand-new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

INSOLVENT MEANING RESTORED IN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

insolvent meaning

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:

  1. the bankrupt was not an insolvent individual when he or she made the assignment in bankruptcy, or
  2. 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.

Call a Trustee Now!