Tag: BIA

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

DEBT HELPERS: WHY CANADIANS DO NOT TRUST DEBT CONSULTANTS

[monkeytools msnip=”https://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=21236″]

Introduction

You may have read or heard about a recent survey. The headline was “Ipsos poll finds half of Canadians don’t trust professional help with debt”. The survey provided some interesting views but did not shed any light on why Canadians do not trust debt helpers.

I regularly speak with people who attend my office for a free initial consultation to try to solve their personal or company debt problems. From those experiences, I have compiled a list of the 10 most common reasons I believe why almost half of those surveyed do not trust debt professionals.

#1 What is a debt professional?

Confusion exists in the marketplace as to what you mean when you say the phrase “debt professional”. Depending on who is doing the talking, and the listening, you could mean:

  • A proper credit counselling agency
  • A for-profit debt settlement company
  • Debt counsellor who has no real qualifications and just acts as an agent for bad credit personal loan companies or worse charges fees just to then take the person to a specifically licensed insolvency trustee (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee)
  • A Trustee

Unfortunately, the survey does not define what the term “debt professional” really means.

#2 I don’t have a debt problem because I am making all my payments

People believe that if they can keep up all their minimum payments, then they are making all of their payments. So if the person says they are making all payments, they can’t have a debt problem. Therefore, they don’t trust anyone who tells them that they do.

However, especially with credit cards, there is a difference between making all the monthly minimum payments and paying the entire debt off every month. What they don’t recognize is that all they are doing is paying the credit card company interest and never actually paying down any debt. Eventually, it will catch up with them when they have no more credit.

#3 You will ruin my credit score

People with debt problems always tell me that they have a great credit score and either a consumer proposal or bankruptcy will ruin that. So with the belief that if they see a debt professional, all that person will do is ruin their credit score, distrust is born.

Even people who have recently been turned down for debt consolidation loans tell me that. What I tell them is that it is true that an insolvency filing will remain on their credit report for some time after they successfully complete their consumer proposal or get their bankruptcy discharge.

However, I also point out that in return, they will have their debt problems fixed. By fixing their debt problems, they will no longer suffer from pain, stress, anxiety, depression and sleepless nights. Some people then choose to take responsibility, fix their debt problems and rehabilitate themselves. Others choose discomfort, stress and anxiety, and sleep deprivation.

#4 Talking won’t do any good. What I need is a loan

Many people feel that talk is cheap. What they really need is money. The gambler with a gambling addiction thinks the next roll of the dice or the next hand of cards will produce all the winnings they need. In the same way, the debt addict believes that one more personal loan will solve all their debt problems. All it will really do is give them a bit more cash, which will never be enough to repay all of their debt.

Increasing debt is not a good strategy for getting out of debt. That extra bit of cash may feel good in the short term, but eventually, all it really is is more debt. What these people don’t realize is that by talking to a Trustee, when they find the right one for them, a relationship begins. The functioning partnership you create with your Trustee is a connection. As you create that connection, long-term modifications in your financial behaviour start to happen to produce good long term results.

#5 It would be weird speaking about such a personal thing with a stranger

In my experience, this may be an initial feeling but does not in fact happen. The majority of Trustees are competent at making you really feel comfy rapidly. They are neither impersonal nor judgmental.

As I mentioned above, once you find the right Trustee for you, a relationship begins. I have found that many of the people that I have helped, consider me a resource to call upon, even long after our professional relationship ends.

#6 I would rather speak to a friend or family member

I have heard this many times. This is really an excuse for not dealing with their debt problems. It is not a reason why people don’t trust debt professionals.

In fact, a recent Angus Reid poll titled The Awkward Silences Survey 2019 found that 17% of the Canadians surveyed do not like to talk about finances. Of those, the least favourite topics they like to talk about are:

  • Personal debt or bankruptcy – 34%
  • Assets, liabilities and net worth – 22%
  • Their income – 16%
  • How they spend their money – 12%
  • Savings and investments – 11%
  • Their mortgage – 5%

I get it. The topic is not pleasant. Speaking with a debt professional is an admission that you have a problem with debt. However, it is also the first positive step to take to solve your debt problems.

#7 Debt professionals do not truly respect you; they do it for the cash

Yes, there are unscrupulous people in the world who advertise themselves to be debt consultants. They make outlandish promises such as they will eliminate your debt without bankruptcy. I cannot speak for them, but I do know myself and many of my Trustee colleagues across Canada.

The Trustee and staff do earn money from helping people with their debt. Just like you earn money from your job or career. However, there is a common bond amongst all Trustees in Canada. That common bond is that they all enjoy helping people. They enjoy seeing your success from their assistance. If they did not, they would be doing something else.

#8 Everyone will know if I go to see a debt professional

This is a common feeling. Again I can only speak about Trustees. Although there is not the same confidentiality with a Trustee as there is with a lawyer, a Trustee does not blab. As big a country as Canada is and as big a city where I practice is, the Trustee community is small. If a Trustee broke confidences, word would get around quickly and that Trustee would not get any referrals.

Keep in mind that the word “trust” is found in “Trustee”. People trust us with some of their deepest problems and we help solve them. I don’t talk to others about your issues.

It is true that the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy runs a database of all insolvency filings. This is a public database that anyone can search for $8. Also, the two Canadian credit reporting agencies, Equifax Canada and TransUnion Canada, purchase that information for their own databases. I have never had anyone tell me that their brother-in-law searched the government database and found out about their insolvency filing.

So at the end of the day, the only people who will know that you filed are yourself, your Trustee, your spouse and anyone that you have told.

#9 The professional fee is too expensive

That depends on who you go to see. If you go to a community credit counselling agency, it is probably no charge. If you go to a debt settlement company scammer, then every one cent is too expensive because they do not do anything useful for you. If you go to see a Trustee, the entire process may end up being free.

Let me explain. The initial consultation with any Trustee will be free. You should get that confirmed upfront when you make the appointment. Other than for situation where you have no assets and no income, a consumer proposal filing or a bankruptcy administration will probably end up not costing you any money specifically for professional fees. Here is why.

The Trustee will advise you what will happen to you and what your responsibilities are in a bankruptcy or consumer proposal. In a bankruptcy, other than for exempt assets, you have to turn over your assets to the Trustee. If you earn income, you may also have a surplus income obligation to pay. The Trustee, under the statute, will be entitled to a fee for services out of those proceeds. So, you will pay nothing for the Trustee’s approved fee.

In a consumer proposal, the Trustee has to first do the bankruptcy calculation. Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA), a consumer proposal must produce a better result for your creditors than your bankruptcy. The Trustee will discuss with you his or her best estimate of how much you need to offer to your creditors in your consumer proposal in order to be successful. That calculation has nothing to do with the fee the Trustee is entitled to under the BIA. The statute says that the Trustee is entitled to a statutory fee from the consumer proposal fund.

So, in this way, the Trustee’s fee for a bankruptcy or consumer proposal administration costs you nothing.

#10 I don’t have time

I believe this also is more of an excuse, not a real reason for not trusting a debt professional. It is uncomfortable to face your debt problems head-on. It is more comfortable to ignore them.

A Trustee will provide a 1-hour consultation for free. In that hour, you will gain better insight to your debt issues and the realistic options available to you to fix them. I always have people tell me at the end of the free consultation, that I have helped them feel much better than they did when they first walked in.

So think of all the things that you do in a day or week, and I am sure that you can find 1 hour to help yourself. If you have a job that makes it impossible to see a Trustee during normal business hours, a Trustee will accommodate you. I have held many early morning or evening appointments.

Debt helpers summary

I hope this debt helpers Brandon’s Blog helps you. As previously stated, there is a good reason not to trust certain debt helpers. You don’t need to feel that way about seeing a Trustee. Are you on the verge of bankruptcy? Do not let any misconceptions about being able to trust a Trustee stop you from understanding 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 a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), 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 for you 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 Starting Now. Call the Ira Smith Team today.

debt helpers

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 PROPOSALS: HOW MANY ARE REJECTED?

[monkeytools msnip=”https://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=21033″]

Introduction

When people with high debt come to see me for their free consultation, many times I shock them. They are shocked when I tell them that bankruptcy might not be required. I then tell them about consumer proposals. I also explain why I think they would be able to successfully complete a consumer proposal (CP) and therefore avoid bankruptcy.

What are consumer proposals?

I have written on the topic many times. In summary, a consumer proposal is a streamlined process under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). This process allows insolvent people to make a formal deal with their creditors. This government approved debt settlement plan is to repay only a portion of what you owe and you can take as long as 5 years of regular monthly payments to do so.

To qualify, the person must be insolvent and owe $250,000 or less to all creditors, other than for any debts secured by way of registration against your principal residence, such as a mortgage.

The person will then ask me how many we have done were rejected. They are trying to determine what the odds are for their deal to be accepted by their creditors. What I tell them is that I first do an assessment and tell them what amount of offer I think they need to make to gain the approval of their creditors. I also tell them that so far, anyone who has followed my advice has had their consumer proposal accepted by their creditors. Therefore, the number of those rejected by people who follow my advice is ZERO.

The benefits

There are benefits to submitting a successful debt settlement payment plan sanctioned under the BIA. The benefits include:

  • Unlike an informal debt arrangement, the CP develops a forum where each of your unsecured creditors has to participate in for your debt restructuring.
  • You maintain your assets and don’t have to give them up.
  • Lawsuits against you or your property and financial debts, or enforcement actions such as wage garnishments, cannot proceed.
  • You do not need to submit an assignment in bankruptcy

The process

Once prepared, the CP is submitted to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada (OSB), the government department that controls Licensed Insolvency Trustees (formerly called bankruptcy trustees) (Trustee). The Trustee acts as the Administrator of the CP.

Once it is submitted, you will quit paying your unsecured creditors for past debts. The Trustee will send a notice of the filing along with a copy of the CP to all creditors affected by the CP. This includes anyone suing you or garnishing your earnings. Those activities against you will stop also.

Your creditors will have 45 days to accept or decline the debt settlement CP deal. If your unsecured creditors are disappointed with the proposal, they can vote against. In that case, the Trustee will discuss modifications with you that the Trustee believes the creditors might accept. That discussion will take place prior to the against vote counting. Usually, this means offering more money to them over the maximum 5 year period. The key is that you have to be able to afford to make those higher monthly payments. It will still be only a portion of the total you owe.

In order for consumer proposals to be accepted, a simple majority of your creditors by dollar value who has filed a proof of claim must approve it. If creditors who have filed a proof of claim choose not to vote, that is considered a vote in favour. You also may not even need to have a meeting of creditors. Unless creditors holding 25% in dollar value of the claims filed to request a meeting, or the OSB requests a meeting, there is no need to hold one. If a meeting is not requested, the proposal is deemed to be accepted by the creditors. This is all part of the streamlining.

Acceptance and performance

If your CP is accepted, the OSB (or any type of other interested parties) has 15 days to ask the Trustee to go to court to have the deal court approved. If no such demand is made, the debt plan is deemed to have actually been accepted by the court. More streamlining.

After acceptance and approval, the person is then accountable for making the regular monthly payments to the Trustee that was promised in the debt management plan. There will also be 2 counselling sessions for the person to attend with the Trustee to help them with their financial issues and behaviour.

If you miss 3 monthly payments, or you are greater than 3 months overdue since your last payment, the proposal will be considered annulled. This indicates to your creditors that they are now able to either resume or begin collection actions against you. Not a good thing.

Full performance

As I previously mentioned, the person must successfully complete the debt management settlement plan by making all the required payments and attending the 2 counselling sessions. When completed, the person is entitled to receive a Certificate of Full Performance. This means that you have successfully completed the CP and that all debts caught by it are discharged.

The Trustee will then finalize the administration of your debt settlement plan, get the necessary OSB approval and distribute the money to all the creditors who have filed a proof of claim. The Administrator also is entitled to the government approved fee.

Summary

Consumer proposals must provide your creditors with a better outcome than what they would get in your bankruptcy. I have never had a consumer proposal rejected for someone who took my advice and made all the payments required.

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

As a Trustee, we are the only professionals acknowledged, accredited and also managed by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and services. A consumer proposal is a federal government licensed debt settlement approach to eliminate your debt. We will certainly help you to pick what is best for you to clear your own debt issues.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so we can eliminate the stress, anxiety, discomfort and pain from your life that your cash problems have produced. With the distinct roadmap, we develop just for you, we will swiftly return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

We have years and generations of experience assisting people and companies looking for debt restructuring to PREVENT bankruptcy. You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you to fix your financial troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will certainly allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

consumer proposals

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.

[monkeytools msnip=”https://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=21010″]

 

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.

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20941″]

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

RESP CONTRIBUTION NOT PROTECTED IN BANKRUPTCY

resp contribution
resp contribution

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this RESP contribution not protected in bankruptcy Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom and click on the podcast

Introduction

Many parents contribute to a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) to save for their children’s post-secondary education. Unlike a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), an RESP contribution, or the total of all contributions made by the parent(s), is subject to seizure in the bankruptcy of the owner of the RESP.

In Brandon’s Blog, I discuss the history of why an RRSP is largely exempt from seizure in a bankruptcy, while a Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) and an RESP are not. The rules governing whether an RRSP or Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF), RDSP or RESP are exempt from seizure or not is an interplay between both federal and provincial laws. As I practise in the province of Ontario, I will speak only about the Ontario situation.

resp contribution
resp contribution

RRSP or RRIF exemption

Before 2008, whether an RRSP was exempt from seizure or not relied solely upon provincial law. There was no federal law which outlined the treatment for an RRSP in bankruptcy. Effective July 2008, the assets contained in either an RRSP or a RRIF were codified in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) to be exempt from seizure, except for contributions made to an RRSP in the 12 months prior to the date of bankruptcy.

The only exception would be based on whether or not RRSPs and RRIFs were exempt from seizure under provincial law. So, in the case of Ontario, the 12-month clawback exists. The bankrupt has to pay the equivalent of the contributions made in the 12 months before the date of bankruptcy.

The reason for making this change to the BIA was because there was an inequality amongst RRSPs. If you held your RRSP at a financial institution, then it was not exempt from seizure in a bankruptcy. However, if you held your RRSP:

  • with an insurance company; AND
  • you had made an irrevocable designation that in the event of your death, the beneficiary of your plan was a spouse, child, parent or grandchild

then under the Ontario Insurance Act the entire RRSP or RRIF was exempt from seizure.

The amendment to the BIA was done for two main reasons:

  • to put all RRSPs and RRIFs on the same footing, regardless of what institution it was held with; and
  • in order to not be destitute in their fresh start that the bankruptcy system allows them to have, retired Canadians who had to go bankrupt should not lose what was probably their single largest source of retirement income as a result of their financial problems.

So before the July 2008 amendment, people who were going to file for bankruptcy and who had a sizeable RRSP held with a chartered bank, would transfer the RRSP to an insurance company and make the required beneficiary designation. Many cases were heard in bankruptcy Courts across Canada.

If the beneficiary in an insurance policy, including the RRSP or RRIF investments, was revocable, it was held that the licensed insolvency trustee (then called a bankruptcy trustee) could revoke the named beneficiary, replace it with designating the Estate as the beneficiary, and then collapsing the plan to obtain the funds.

If the beneficiary was irrevocable, then the Trustee could not collapse the investment. Rather, it would have to be 1 of the reasons why a Trustee would oppose the bankrupt’s discharge. The reason being is that the person, knowing themselves to be insolvent, transferred an asset out of the creditors’ reach for no value obtained. This was called a settlement.

The leading case which was subsequently followed by other Courts, including Ontario, was The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan case Royal Bank of Canada v. North American Life Assurance Co., 1994 CanLII 4696 (SK CA) which became known as the Ramgotra case.

The reason is that Dr. Ramgotra was bankrupt. Royal Bank was a creditor and obtained Court approval to appeal, in lieu of the Trustee, a lower Court decision on what should happen to the RRSP, turned into an RRIF, funds. The Court of Appeal determined that since Mrs. Ramgotra obtained an irrevocable interest in the property, notwithstanding the RRSP transfer was a settlement, the Trustee could not obtain the money.

resp contribution
resp contribution

RDSP and Budget 2019

An RDSP is a financial savings strategy that is planned to assist moms and dads and others build up funds for the long-term financial safety of an individual who qualifies for the disability tax credit.

Unlike RRSPs, the balance kept in RDSPs are not excluded from seizure in a bankruptcy. The reason for this is because the settlor of the RDSP may do an RDSP withdrawal of funds at any time. The theory is that funds will be withdrawn for the welfare of the disabled person. However, it is the ability to withdraw funds at any time, that renders this vehicle to not be a true legal trust.

In Budget 2019, it is proposed that RDSPs be given the identical treatment to RRSPs. The societal aim is to make sure that the needs of a disabled person are not negatively affected due to the financial problems of the person who is looking out for and financially contributing to the welfare of the disabled person. More than likely the contributor is a parent.

Budget 2019 intends to exclude RDSPs from seizure in bankruptcy, except for payments made in the 12 months prior to the date of bankruptcy. This will put in on the same footing as RRSPs.

resp contribution
resp contribution

RESPs are not exempt

The reason that RESP contribution funds are not exempt from seizure in bankruptcy is fairly simple. The child does not obtain property interest in the RESP funds as the parent can collapse the plan any time before maturity. Therefore it is not a trust or any form of transfer of property to the child. Therefore, the Trustee of a bankrupt parent who owns an RESP can collapse it.

If the parent wishes the RESP to continue and not be collapsed, satisfactory arrangements have to be made with the Trustee for the equivalent amount of funds in the RESP as at the date of bankruptcy be paid to the Trustee for the benefit of the bankruptcy Estate and the bankrupt’s creditors.

As a result of perceived inequality, on June 3, 2019, Dan Albas, Conservative MP for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola (B.C.), introduced as a private member’s bill, Bill C-453, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (property of bankrupt — registered education savings plan). This Bill intends to amend s. 67(1)‍(b.‍3) of the BIA, so that RESPs receive the same treatment as RRSPs and the treatment proposed in Budget 2019 for RDSPs.

The thrust is obviously to make sure that other than for contributions made in the 12 months before the date of bankruptcy, a parent should not lose the RESP benefits for their child’s post-secondary school education because of their bankruptcy.

As private member’s bills rarely become law, I am doubtful that this initiative, no matter how well-meaning, will pass. There may also be a societal distinction between a retiree whose income earning days are behind him or her, a disabled person who is reliant upon a trust set up for their care and benefit and an elementary or high school student’s future university or college tuition.

resp contribution
resp contribution

What about you?

Are you in financial distress? Are you worried about any RRSP, RDSP or RESP contribution? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your financial obligations as they come due? Are you worried about what will happen to you in retirement?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people looking for financial restructuring, a debt settlement plan and to AVOID bankruptcy.

As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A consumer proposal is a government approved debt settlement plan to do that. We will help you decide on what is best for you between a consumer proposal vs bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can eliminate the stress, anxiety, and pain from your life that your financial problems have caused. With the one-of-a-kind roadmap, we develop just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20894″]

resp contribution

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

OSAP BANKRUPTCY IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MIGHT THINK

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20863″]

OSAP bankruptcy Introduction

I have written before on the issue of the difficulty in discharging student loans through bankruptcy. Bankruptcy will certainly not release your student loans debt until you’ve been out of full or part-time studies for 7 years. It is also question and answer #8 in our TOP 20 PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY FAQS found on our main website. In Brandon’s Blog, I want to drill down into the issue of an OSAP bankruptcy.

What is OSAP?

The Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) is a financial assistance program that can assist students in spending for college or university.

OSAP provides money via:

  • Grant: cash you do not need to repay
  • Loan: a loan you are required to pay off when you’re done college or university

OSAP can assist your spending for:

  • tuition
  • books and supplies/equipment
  • student fees billed by an institution
  • living expenditures
  • childcare

Amongst the various categories of people who are not eligible for OSAP, one is those people who have filed for either personal bankruptcy or a consumer proposal. As you might imagine, the rules surrounding OSAP bankruptcy are not simple. Let’s do some drilling down now!

Students that did not get student loans before the day they declared bankruptcy or filed a consumer proposal

If the student has been discharged from bankruptcy or fully completed a consumer proposal, she or he does not require to offer any type of supporting paperwork in order for their OSAP application to be reviewed.

If the student is an undischarged bankrupt or has not completed the consumer proposal, the student must supply a letter from their licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) or consumer proposal administrator. The document must show the day the student filed for either bankruptcy or the consumer proposal and that these 2 matters have actually been or will be satisfied:

  • Ontario and Canada is not a creditor in the bankruptcy or consumer proposal as an outcome of monetary help provided via OSAP; and
  • no monetary help offered to the student via OSAP during the current OSAP year will be taken in the insolvency proceedings to pay back the creditors

Discharged and the student is not presently enrolled in studies

If the student is discharged from bankruptcy or has successfully completed a consumer proposal, his/her OSAP application will not be decided upon until the student gives evidence that they have no amount owing on any student loans.

Alternatively, if applicable, the student can show that he/she received relief in their bankruptcy by way of a court order stating that section 178(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) no longer applies to the student loans.

In this situation, the student needs to supply:

  • evidence that an order of discharge or full completion of the consumer proposal has been achieved and that 3 years have expired since that date
  • a copy of the notice of bankruptcy/consumer proposal
  • letter from the student’s bank and/or the National Student Loans Service Centre confirming there is no outstanding balance
  • any relevant court order

Discharged and continuing a program of study

If the student is discharged from bankruptcy or has successfully completed a consumer proposal, his/her OSAP application will not be decided upon until the student gives evidence that they have no amount owing on any student loans.

Alternatively, if applicable, the student can show that he/she received relief in their bankruptcy by way of a court order stating that section 178(1)(g) of the BIA no longer applies to the student loans.

In this situation, the student needs to prove that he/she meets all of the following criteria:

  • at the time the student declared bankruptcy or filed the consumer proposal, they were enrolled in an accepted program of study at an accepted school and taking the minimum called for course load
  • the student remains in the same accepted program they were in on the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date
  • the student has not had a break in studies longer than 6 months since the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date
  • it has not been greater than 3 fiscal years since the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date

In this situation, the student needs to supply:

  • evidence that an order of discharge or full completion of the consumer proposal has been achieved and that 3 years have expired since that date
  • a copy of the notice of bankruptcy/consumer proposal
  • letter from the student’s bank and/or the National Student Loans Service Centre confirming there is no outstanding balance
  • any relevant court order
  • letter from the student’s Financial Aid Office verifying that the program of study in which the student was registered at the time of the bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing, is the same as the program the student is now applying for

Undischarged bankrupt or has not yet fully completed the consumer proposal

If the student is an undischarged bankrupt or has not successfully completed a consumer proposal, the processing of the student’s OSAP application will not be completed until the student gives evidence that they have no amount owing on any student loans.

In this situation, the student needs to prove that he/she meets all of the following criteria:

  • at the time the student declared bankruptcy or filed the consumer proposal, they were enrolled in an accepted program of study at an accepted school and taking the minimum called for course load
  • the student remains in the same accepted program the were in on the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date
  • the student has not had a break in studies longer than 6 months since the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date
  • it has not been greater than 3 fiscal years since the date of bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing date

In this situation, the student needs to supply a letter from their licensed insolvency trustee or consumer proposal administrator. The document must show the day the student filed for either bankruptcy or the consumer proposal and that these 2 matters have actually been or will be satisfied:

  • Ontario and Canada is not a creditor in the bankruptcy or consumer proposal as an outcome of monetary help provided via OSAP; and
  • no monetary help offered to the student via OSAP during the current OSAP year will be taken in the insolvency proceedings to pay back the creditors

The student will also need to supply a:

  • letter from the student’s bank and/or the National Student Loans Service Centre confirming there is no outstanding balance
  • any relevant court order
  • letter from the student’s Financial Aid Office verifying that the program of study in which the student was registered at the time of the bankruptcy/consumer proposal filing, is the same as the program the student is now applying for

Summary

I hope you now understand that the whole area of OSAP bankruptcy and student loans in either a bankruptcy or consumer proposal is not as simple as you might have originally thought. This is especially the case if the student is continuing his or her studies.

Do you have too much debt? Are you in financial distress? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your financial obligations as they come due?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people looking for financial restructuring, a debt settlement plan and to AVOID bankruptcy.

As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A consumer proposal is a government approved debt settlement plan to do that. We will help you decide on what is best for you between a consumer proposal vs bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can eliminate the stress, anxiety, and pain from your life that your financial problems have caused. With the one-of-a-kind roadmap, we develop just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

osap bankruptcy

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CONSUMER PROPOSAL CANADA: A BLUEPRINT TO STOP BILL COLLECTORS

consumer proposal canada

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

Introduction

I have written before on the concept of how a bankruptcy filing puts into place a stay of proceedings. A section of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) states that creditors are not allowed to take or continue any collection or enforcement activity against a bankrupt person or company. But what about a consumer proposal Canada? I will discuss this concept for a consumer proposal and highlight a recent case on this issue.

The federal law

Under section 69.2 (1) of the BIA, with certain limited exceptions, when a consumer proposal is filed, “…no creditor has any remedy against the debtor or the debtor’s property, or shall commence or continue any action, execution or other proceedings, for the recovery of a claim provable in bankruptcy…”.

So if the claim is one that is provable in a bankruptcy, and therefore in a consumer proposal Canada, then the creditor cannot begin or continue a lawsuit or try to enforce a judgment for the amount owed.

A recent decision from the Ontario Court confirms this law where a consumer proposal Canada will stop creditors and bill collectors from starting or continuing legal action against you.

The facts of this case

The case is Yigzaw v. Ashagrie, 2019 ONSC 2474. It is about a motion to lift the stay of proceedings to permit enforcement of an order issued against the debtors who have filed a consumer proposal.

The applicants, Philipos Yigzaw and Aster Abraham, seek to appeal an order issued by the Court on February 21, 2017 (the 2017 order). The 2017 order was gotten on the basis of summary judgment on an application started by the applicants. In their application, they sought repayment of $102,500 that they had advanced to the respondents Anaketch Ashagrie and Yilma Gari to fund a business operating under the name “Telling Roses”. They also seek an accounting of how the funds had actually been spent.

The 2017 order required Ashagrie and Gari to pay $102,500 to Yigzaw and Abraham in addition to costs of $6,250. The respondents were likewise required to provide an accounting. The Court declined to issue a certificate of pending litigation against the respondents’ residence, although a writ of execution was issued. The respondents submitted a consumer proposal the very next day.

In this enforcement motion, the applicants state that the respondents have failed to adhere to the 2017 order. They look for relief that would require Ashagrie and Gari to be examined and to pay the amount of the judgment. They also want a finding that the respondents are in contempt.

The issues for the Court to consider

The Court first considered section 69.2 (1) of the BIA I spoke about above. The Court then looked at the exception I alluded to, being Section 69.4 of the BIA.

That section says that a Court may, in certain circumstances, raise the stay to allow a creditor to pursue its rights against a debtor who has filed consumer proposal. To obtain a lifting of the stay, the creditor must persuade the Court that it is most likely to be materially prejudiced by the ongoing stay, or that lifting the stay is equitable on other grounds.

Canadian courts have held that the criteria in s. 69.4 might be fulfilled where the creditor’s debt will not be released as an outcome of the insolvency process. The types of financial obligations that are not discharged are provided in s. 178( 1) of the BIA.

They consist of a debt or obligation arising out of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity as well as a debt or obligation resulting from obtaining property or services by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation. Lifting of a stay is not a routine matter.

To succeed, the applicants have to show how they are most likely to be materially prejudiced by the stay, or that there are various other equitable grounds to raise it.

In a typical motion under s. 69.4, the applicant looking to lift the stay says that it needs to have the opportunity to prove that its accusations come from an activity provided in s. 178( 1) to ensure that it may obtain a judgment against the bankrupt or insolvent person. If successful, then that claim would survive the insolvency process.

In that normal case, the Court examines the creditor’s claims to identify if the debt, if confirmed, would be released as an outcome of the bankruptcy or proposal. Sometimes, the Court may also consider evidence submitted by the creditor.

This case is uncommon because the applicants have already gotten a judgment on their claim. They are not seeking to show their claim. They are looking to enforce the Order. So the concern the Court must think about is whether that Order was made according to a cause of action listed in s. 178( 1 ). The Judge did this by reviewing the claims and evidence before the Judge who gave judgment, his analysis, and the evidence filed in this motion.

The Court’s analysis

The Court quite properly pointed out that in order to be successful for the lifting of the stay, the applicants had to show that their debt was more than just one of a contract to lend money that was not repaid.

The Court said that looking at the application in the most charitable method possible, the claims could not support a finding that the respondents obtained property from the applicants by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation. The applicants state that their loan was conditional on the money being used for “Telling Roses”. They do not declare that they were induced to loan money to “Telling Roses” as an outcome of any type of illegal misstatement by the respondents. Likewise, the applicants do not allege that the respondents took part in any kind of deceitful acts that induced them to loan the funds. Therefore, the exception from the discharge of the debt in s. 178( 1 )( e) of the BIA was not advanced in the applicants’ claim.

The allegations in the application also do not support a finding that the participants engaged in fraudulence, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. To meet that standard it is not nearly enough for a debt to have actually been brought on by fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation. That form of criminal activity had to have occurred in the context of a fiduciary relationship.

The applicants do not declare that the respondents had a fiduciary obligation towards them. The relationship they explain with the respondents would not follow such a claim. Fiduciary relationships are unusual in arms’ length business transaction. The applicants additionally do not clearly affirm that the respondents participated in any type of scam at any point.

In reviewing the reasons given by the Judge who made the 2017 order, and in looking at all the other evidence in this motion, the Court found that it was anything more than one party loaning funds to another to start a business. The business never made a profit, it failed and therefore, could not repay the money.

The decision

Given these facts and the Court’s analysis, the Court found that the applicants could not succeed on their motion to lift the stay. Rather, the Court confirmed that the 2017 judgment could only be used as the basis for the applicants to file a proof of claim in the consumer proposal filed.

The basis for the 2017 order was a finding that the applicants lent the respondents the amount of $102,500. There is absolutely nothing in the underlying decision, or in the accusations in the application on which judgment was obtained, or in any evidence submitted in this motion, that puts the applicants’ claim in the classification of financial debts that are not released under s. 178( 1) of the BIA.

Therefore, the applicants’ motion to lift the stay under s. 69.4 of the BIA was rejected. They failed to show that they are likely to be materially prejudiced by the ongoing operation of the stay or that there are various other equitable factors that would lead to a conclusion to lift the stay.

Do you have too much debt?

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

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people looking for financial restructuring, a debt settlement plan and to AVOID bankruptcy.

As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A consumer proposal is a government-approved debt settlement plan to do that. We will help you decide on what is best for you between a consumer proposal vs bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can eliminate the stress, anxiety, and pain from your life that your financial problems have caused. With the one-of-a-kind roadmap, we develop just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20848″]

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

ONTARIO COMMERCIAL LEASE AGREEMENT: INSOLVENT COMMERCIAL TENANT

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20782″]

 

Introduction

I reviewed a Court decision out of Alberta that was rendered on April 4, 2019. The case is Royal Bank of Canada v. Parkland Properties Ltd., [2019] A.J. No. 412, from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. In reviewing this case about an insolvent tenant, who later became a bankrupt commercial tenant, the same would hold true in Ontario. I thought it would be helpful to review the principles in this decision, and how it would relate to an Ontario Commercial Lease Agreement.

Background

Unlike Ontario, there is no commercial tenancy act in Alberta. However, there are various other provincial statutes and a Supreme Court of Canada decision, that provides guidance for commercial landlords and tenants in Alberta.

If a commercial lessee breaches a business lease in Alberta, similar to Ontario law, a landlord has various alternatives. For a properly worded commercial tenancy agreement, the main alternatives include distraining on the tenant’s assets located on the leased commercial premises or terminating the commercial tenant’s lease. Suing for any damages, including rent arrears and for the unexpired duration of the lease, may also be part of the landlord’s rights.

Distraint or distress is the seizure of the commercial tenant’s property in order to acquire the repayment of rent arrears and various other amounts owed. Distraint normally includes the seizure of goods belonging to the lessee on the premises by the landlord to market them for the settlement of the amount owing at that point in time under the lease.

In a properly conducted distraint, no Court order is required. The landlord must also be careful when advising the tenant of the distraint, to also notify the lessee that the lease is not being ended. This way, the landlord may recoup further unpaid amounts or other damages in the future. On a practical basis, if the tenant does not bring the lease into good standing and allows the distraint to be completed, the business is probably over anyway.

Under the Alberta Civil Enforcement Regulation, the landlord would hire a bailiff to carry out the distraint and sale of the assets. This is what happened in the Royal Bank of Canada v. Parkland Properties Ltd. case I recently reviewed.

The facts and decision of the case

The facts are pretty simple. The landlord began and completed distraint proceedings against its tenant. At the time of the seizure, the insolvent tenant was $79,586 behind in rent. The landlord’s bailiff completed the sale of the assets. After taking its fee, the bailiff paid over to the landlord the amount of $223,990. The tenant became a bankrupt company after the funds were paid to the landlord.

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) was a secured creditor of the tenant. At the date of bankruptcy, RBC was owed $498,799. RBC took an action that originally was an action that could be taken by the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee). It did so under section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). The Trustee was either unwilling or unable to launch the action. The action RBC launched was for the repayment of the amount realized by the landlord as a preferential payment under section 95 of the BIA.

The Court ruled partly in favour of RBC. It ordered that the landlord could retain the amount of $79,586. The balance of $144,404 could not be kept by the landlord and had to be paid over to RBC.

Ontario commercial lease agreement: The same decision would be reached in Ontario

I am satisfied that the same decision would be reached in Ontario. As I mentioned above, distraint is not a termination of the lease. Although the practical effect would be to end the tenant’s business, the lease continues and so does the tenant’s obligations to the landlord. The commercial tenant’s rights under its Ontario commercial lease agreement also remain. Distraint is a mutually exclusive remedy from termination of the lease.

The Court determined that Section 95 of the BIA does not apply to set aside distraint proceedings by a landlord under a commercial tenancy agreement in arrears. That section just included payments made by an insolvent party. The Court also stated that Section 70 of the BIA protects the landlord’s distraint because the distraint was fully completed by payment to the landlord.

However, the Court did find that the payment to the landlord was extreme. As you will recall, the distraint is based on the arrears at the time of effecting the distraint. In this case, the amount outstanding at that time was $79,586. However, the amount paid to the landlord, after the costs of distraint, was $223,990. Commercial lease landlord responsibilities include providing proper accounting. Therefore, the Court ordered that the excess over what the landlord was owed, $144,404, had to be paid to the plaintiff, RBC.

If there were no secured creditors and the Trustee launched the application, the result would have been the same. The only difference would be that the excess funds would have to be paid over to the Trustee. The result in Ontario would be the same as in this Alberta case.

Is your company insolvent?

Is your company behind in its rent payments under its Ontario commercial lease agreement? Does it not have enough cash to continue its operations?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people and companies trying to find financial restructuring or a financial debt negotiation strategy. As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals licensed, recognized and supervised by the federal government to supply bankruptcy and insolvency advice and carry out strategies to aid you to stay clear of bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can cut the stress, anxiousness and pain from your life that your financial issues have caused. With the special roadmap, we establish just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and hassle-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your company’s debt troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.ontario commercial lease agreement

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY CANADA NEW EVENTS (2019)

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20756″]

Introduction

There has been two recent bankruptcy Canada new events that I believe are important to discuss. I believe you will hear more about it over the next few months. The two are unrelated.

One deals with the insolvency of oil and gas companies. The other with the rights of retired people and their company pensions and health benefits when their former employer goes into insolvency proceedings.

Bankruptcy Canada – The Redwater decision fallout

I have previously written about the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Redwater Energy Corporation matter. On January 31, 2019, the top Federal Court released its decision in the case of Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd. The Supreme Court reversed 2 Alberta lower Court decisions. It is now the law of the land that, prior to lenders or creditors getting any type of repayment, the receiver or trustee will need to invest the funds from the sale of assets on the environmental remediation costs on all orphaned wells, that provincial legislation may need.

The decision made it clear that the receiver or trustee does not need to spend cash it does not have from the sale of assets or other recoveries. However, whatever amount it recoups from the sale of assets, on a net basis, will initially need to go to provincially mandated clean-up costs of the financially troubled company’s wells. This is before secured or unsecured creditors see a penny.

Trident Exploration Corp.

Now for the fallout. Natural gas producer Trident Exploration Corp. (Trident) ceased operations on April 30, 2019. On May 3 on application to the Court by the Alberta Energy Regulator’s Orphan Well Association, Trident was placed in receivership.

Its staff and contractors have been terminated and its 3,600+ wells are being transitioned to the Alberta regulator.

The company claimed it had functioned openly and collaboratively with its lenders and the regulator since February. It further reported that it was unable to see that a successful restructuring could be accomplished in a timely fashion. Therefore, Trident’s lender stopped supporting the business. Due to this, Trident does not have the funds to run its infrastructure or enter into insolvency proceedings. Consequently, they have determined to walk away, leaving greater than 3,600 sites, a number of them active, without an operator.

The regulator then issued its order for the sites to be properly decommissioned and capped off. On April 30, Trident, without replying to the regulator’s order or addressing their environmental obligations, the Directors ceased operations, terminated its staff and contractors. The Board then resigned. Trident’s wells will soon be transferred to the Orphan Well Association.

The Redwater effect

Trident blamed the recent Redwater Supreme Court decision which ruled that capping of orphan oil and gas wells and environmental remediation should take priority over lenders when a business goes bankrupt and leaves behind orphan wells.

Trident also said that the Redwater decision, regulatory uncertainty and current low pricing has developed a treacherous setting for energy companies that dare to risk their capital in Canada.

Trident estimates that its total abandonment and improvement obligations are about $329 million. They estimate that with those costs, any recovery by secured lenders is unsure and there would be no funds for either unsecured creditors or shareholders.

The Redwater effect is that the Court’s decision has had the unintended result of increasing Trident’s financial distress and accelerating the abandonment of its wells, has it had no funds to live up to its obligations.

Only time will tell if other insolvent energy producers take the route of Trident by just shutting down and abandoning its business and leaving its wells for the regulator to deal with.

Bankruptcy Canada – Retiree pension and health benefit rights protection in insolvency proceedings

Another topic I have previously written about is the lack of protection for retirees for pension and health benefit payments when the former employer enters insolvency proceedings. Rank-and-file members of the United Steelworkers (USW) from across Canada were on Parliament Hill to consult with MPs and requesting a commitment to legislate protection for retired workers. The USW very much want to make this a 2019 federal election issue.

The 2019 federal budget plan was very quiet on any type of commitment to shield workers and retirees by treating them as protected or priority creditors in our insolvency laws.

As a result of high-profile cases such as Nortel in Ottawa, Stelco in Hamilton and Sears, the USW is committed to campaigning for retirees to have a safe future.

Retirees understand just how unsecure their pension plans and benefits might be if a firm gets into restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or any proceeding under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

Pensions are delayed earnings and, by the time financial institutions as well as various other creditors are paid, there is nothing left for workers for any shortfall or benefit payments. The USW feels that all Canadians ought to be outraged by the treatment of retired Canadians in corporate insolvency matters.

This is why they met with MPs Senators. They want to focus on a collection of recent Bills presently before the House of Commons and the Senate. Two are before the House of Commons but they have not progressed. One is sponsored by the New Democratic Party, and the other by the Bloc Québecois. They are focused on reforming the CCAA and the BIA to offer top priority to claims by workers arising out of an underfunded pension plan and the removal of benefits.

An additional Bill, presented in the Senate late last year by now-retired Senator Art Eggleton, likewise aims to grant secured standing for pension claims.

It will be interesting to see if the Conservative Party picks up on this important debate and turns it into an election issue. The Liberal Party had promised to deal with this issue in the last four years, but alas, they have not delivered.

Bankruptcy Canada – Summary

Corporations that cannot afford to properly shut down their business and retirees losing out on benefits they worked their whole life for are important issues in insolvency. Does your company not have enough cash to continue its operations? Did you not receive all amounts you are entitled to and now are facing personal financial problems?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people and companies trying to find financial restructuring or a financial debt negotiation strategy. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals licensed, recognized and supervised by the federal government to supply insolvency advice and carry out strategies to aid you to stay clear of personal bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can cut the stress, anxiousness and pain from your life that your financial issues have caused. With the special roadmap, we establish just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and hassle-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your debt troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will most certainly allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

 

bankruptcy canada

 

 

Call a Trustee Now!