Tag: Court of Appeal for Ontario

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT: CAN YOU TRUST AN INSOLVENCY PROCEEDING?

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

Stay healthy and safe everybody.

Introduction

Matters involving the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 ( formerly known as the Construction Lien Act) is very complex. In this Brandon’s Blog, I will use the term that laypeople are most familiar with, being the former name of the provincial legislation.

Construction law is a specialty unto itself. It gets even more complex when a company involved in construction enters insolvency proceedings. There is normally a conflict in these kinds of files between:

In this Brandon’s Blog, I describe a recent 5 member panel decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario who had to decide whether a trust created under section 9(1) of the provincial Construction Lien Act survives a sale by the Monitor in an insolvency proceeding under the federal Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The case is Urbancorp Cumberland 2 GP Inc. (Re), 2020 ONCA 197 (Urbancorp). The matter was heard on October 3, 2019. The unanimous decision was recently released on March 11, 2020.

Some background matters

Before getting into the actual case, there are two background matters that I should first explain. When I thought of these concepts and then the decision this way, it made it easier for me to understand.

The first issue is the types of insolvency proceedings. There are essentially four types of insolvency proceedings. Some are not mutually exclusive. Each one of them can be used for the assets of the insolvent debtor to be sold. I break down the insolvency proceedings list in this way:

  1. Using the restructuring provisions of either the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) or CCAA.
  2. A bankruptcy administration under the BIA.
  3. A secured creditor taking enforcement proceedings on the assets subject to its security through the security itself by privately appointing a Receiver or Receiver and Manager.
  4. A secured creditor making an application to the Court that it is just or convenient for the Court to appoint a Receiver to act on behalf of all creditors in stabilizing an insolvent debtor situation and to come back to Court with recommendations on how to proceed, including the sale of assets.

The second issue has to do with trust claims under the Construction Lien Act. There are several sections in the legislation dealing with trust claims. As I stated above, it is a very complex topic. So, I am going to only focus on the one that is the subject matter of this case. That is section 9(1) of the Act. That section deals with a trust claim against the vendor of the construction assets. It states:

“9 (1) Where the owner’s interest in a premises is sold by the owner, an amount equal to,

(a) the value of the consideration received by the owner as a result of the sale,

less,

(b) the reasonable expenses arising from the sale and the amount, if any, paid by the vendor to discharge any existing mortgage indebtedness on the premises,

constitutes a trust fund for the benefit of the contractor. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, s. 9 (1); 2017, c. 24, s. 9, 70.

Obligations as trustee

(2) The former owner is the trustee of the trust created by subsection (1), and shall not appropriate or convert any part of the trust property to the former owner’s own use or to any use inconsistent with the trust until the contractor is paid all amounts owed to the contractor that relate to the improvement. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, s. 9 (2).”

The distinction here that I want you to keep in mind is the words in the very first line “Where the owner’s interest in a premises is sold by the owner…”(emphasis added).

Now for the case.

The Urbancorp Construction Lien Act case

This case deals with Urbancorp and related companies that developed and was building a residential condominium project. Urbancorp was insolvent and filed first a Notice of Intention to Make A Proposal under the BIA. The proceedings were later converted by the Court into proceedings under the CCAA. The insolvency proceeding was in both cases under a Federal restructuring statue. The Court appointed a Monitor to oversee the insolvency administration. Through various Court applications and court orders, the Monitor was given the authority to market and sell the condominium assets. The Monitor did so.

Now the cash the Monitor received from the sale stood in place of the original condominium assets. Subcontractors brought an application before the lower Court claiming they had a valid trust claim under the Construction Lien Act. The lower court judge carefully reviewed the evidence and prior decided cases and came to the conclusion that the subcontractors did not have a valid trust claim against the assets. The subcontractors appealed the lower court’s decision.

In addition to appealing the lower court’s decision, they also raised with the Court of Appeal a constitutional question that comes up many times. The constitutional question is, does federal law always take priority, or trump (with a small “t”!!) provincial law. This is otherwise known as the concept of paramountcy. Stated slightly differently, the issue can be stated as does section 9 of the Construction Lien Act remain to have application after a bankruptcy or initial order under the CCAA? The Attorney General of Ontario also stepped in on that part of the case.

The Court of Appeal accepted this constitutional question to be decided so there were now two issues before the Court of Appeal; the issue of paramountcy and the trust claim issue.

The constitutional question

The Court of Appeal went through a very thoughtful and careful analysis. It confined the constitutional question to the facts of this case. The court concluded in this case:

  1. The trust created under section 9(1) of the Construction Lien Act is a valid trust under provincial law.
  2. The BIA excludes from property available to the creditors any property held in trust.
  3. Therefore, this provincial trust can be effective when there is an insolvency proceeding under the BIA.
  4. Similarly, with the CCAA legislation, it follows that a section 9(1) provincially created trust might be effective when the insolvency administration is subject to the CCAA.

Now for the actual appeal

The Appeal Court now turned to the lower court judge’s decision that a section 9(1) of the Construction Lien Act trust did not apply in this matter. The five-member panel again went through a careful analysis of the statute and the case law. They spent a lot of time reviewing an earlier Court of Appeal for Ontario decision which the lower court judge relied upon in his decision.

The Court of Appeal highlighted that in that decision the lower court relied upon, the owner, being the insolvent debtor, had no interest in the asset that the subcontractors were claiming a trust claim against. The reasons were:

  1. The asset was part of a package of assets sold.
  2. There was a secured creditor who had security over all of the assets of the developer.
  3. The proceeds less the expenses to produce the sale were less than what was owed to the secured creditor.
  4. The court allowed the cash from the sale to stand in place of the assets.

Using this framework, the Court of Appeal stated that a s.9( 1) trust only arises if the value of the consideration received by the owner from the sale of assets, which have actually been enhanced by the work or materials of the contractor, surpasses the amount of the mortgage debt. A trust will not occur if the value is zero, or if the mortgage debt is equal to or above any kind of sale proceeds.

Therefore, the decision that the lower court relied upon in disallowing the trust claim does not stand for the suggestion that control by a CCAA Monitor of a sales process, or the receipt by the Monitor of the proceeds of the sale by itself, avoids a s.9( 1) trust against the proceeds of the sale of the enhancement are shown to have a positive worth that surpasses the mortgage debt on the asset. That fact pattern was absent from the case relied upon.

The decision

Now, you remember at the beginning of this blog I went through the essentially four types of insolvency proceedings. The Court of Appeal also considered the various types. The court drew a distinction in them as it relates to section 9(1) of the Construction Lien Act. Also remember that from my quotation above of this section, it starts with “Where the owner’s interest in a premises is sold by the owner…”(emphasis added).

In a receivership or bankruptcy, the owner loses control of the assets. The vendor in a sale is either the receiver/receiver and manager or the trustee in bankruptcy, respectively. In those examples, it is not the owner selling its own assets. It is the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) selling its right, title and interest, if any, in the assets of the debtor. So the vendor is the licensed insolvency trustee in its specific capacity.

The Urbancorp matter started out as a restructuring under the Proposal provisions of the BIA and was then converted by the Court and continued under a different restructuring statute, the CCAA. In an insolvency administration under the restructuring provisions/statue, the owner does not lose control of its assets. True that the Monitor is given court authority to make decisions, market and then sell the assets. However, one of the cornerstones of the appointment of a Monitor is that the owner does not lose control of the assets and the Monitor does not become the owner of the assets.

Rather, the Monitor gets its powers from the court. The Monitor is actually selling the insolvent company’s assets as the company’s representative or agent. So even though it is the Monitor doing the selling, it is doing so on behalf of the owner. This is very different than a sale by a receiver/receiver and manager or trustee in bankruptcy.

In the Urbancorp situation, the value of the consideration received by the owner from the sale of assets, which have actually been enhanced by the work or materials of the contractor, surpasses the amount of the mortgage debt.

Highlighting these distinctions, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned the lower court decision and upheld the subcontractors’ trust claim. It substituted the lower court decision with an order that a s.9( 1) trust under the Construction Lien Act applies for the sum of $3,864,429 held in the accounts of the Monitor on account of the Urbancorp companies, for the benefit of the subcontractors, pro-rata in accordance with the amount owing to each of them.

Summary

I hope you found this case review helpful. It should be of particular interest to contractors, developers and builders in Ontario.

The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

Are you now worried just how you or your business are going to survive? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. This pandemic situation has made everyone scared.

The Ira Smith Team understands these concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt problems while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you.

We understand that people facing money problems require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you and end the discomfort you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will listen to the unique issues facing you and provide you with practical and actionable ideas you can implement right away to end the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

Stay healthy and safe everybody.construction lien act

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WILLS AND ESTATES: SELLING DECEASED ESTATE PROPERTY

wills and estates

If you would like to hear the audio version of this wills and estates Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast

Introduction

Earlier this year, I wrote several blogs dealing with the administration of wills and estates. As I previously wrote, Ira Smith and I got very interested in this area. The reason was that we saw that the skill set required and the activities undertaken by an executor of a deceased estate, were quite similar. In Ontario, the executor of a deceased estate is called an estate trustee.

My series of blogs on the administration of a deceased estate in Ontario, in no particular order, were:

  1. DYING WITHOUT A WILL IN ONTARIO: DISTRIBUTION TO HEIRS NOT EASY
  2. TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS
  3. TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?
  4. ESTATE TRUSTEE ONTARIO REMOVAL ISSUES
  5. SUCCESSION LAW REFORM ACT OPPORTUNITIES FROM A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE
  6. TRUSTEE ACT ONTARIO BY A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE
  7. ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO
  8. ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET
  9. PROBATE IN ONTARIO – SMITH ESTATE TRUSTEE ONTARIO BEGINS

The purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to review a very interesting recent Court of Appeal for Ontario decision appealing a lower Court’s ruling in an estate matter. The appeal was launched by the Estate Trustee who felt the lower court judge erred in approving a sale of an estate asset for a lower price than the Estate Trustee thought was proper. The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the lower court’s decision.

This could very well happen to a receiver or trustee in an insolvency file. Again, another similarity between the role we take on in an insolvency file administration and the role Smith Estate Trustee Ontario takes on as Estate Trustee in the administration of a deceased estate.

Wills and estates definition

First some basics. An estate is the property that an individual owns or has a lawful controlling interest in. The term is usually made use of to define the assets and liabilities left by a person after death. A will is a document that states your final wishes. It is a document that becomes operative after your death. It will appoint one or more people to act as an estate trustee. It will also provide for how you want your assets to be divided up amongst your beneficiary or beneficiaries.

On December 6, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in the legal case Loran v. Weissmann, 2019 ONCA 962 (CanLII). As I mentioned, the Estate Trustee appealed the lower court’s decision released in January 2019. The issue was one that could easily come up in other wills and estates. Since the issue being appealed was the lower court’s decision on a sales price for an asset, this issue also can arise in insolvency files. Just a different context.

Wills and estates Ontario: What was the issue?

This appeal by the estate trustee occurred out of a disagreement regarding a provision in the will concerning the sale of the business owned by the deceased. Unfortunately, this happens all too frequently. The provision in dispute was regarding the sales price of the business.

The will stated that the respondent, a long-time employee of the business, could purchase the business. The purchase price stated in the will was “…the lesser of $1.75 million or “the price determined by multiplying the earnings of…(averaged over the last three fiscal periods) by a factor of 5.5”.

The will also stated that the price paid by the respondent will be provided by way of a promissory note, with interest payable at 5% per year. There will be an annual repayment to the estate of not less than $180,000, to be made in month-to-month payments. The promissory note was to be secured by a general security agreement against the assets of the business and by the registration of a mortgage against the respondent’s house.

So far it sounds pretty simple, or so you would think.

They couldn’t reach a deal

The long-time employee tried to purchase the business, but the estate trustee and the employee could not agree on the purchase price. That is how they ended up in court.

The lower court judge hearing the evidence ruled that the sales price will be $529,611. He calculated this as $716,921, using the formula in the will, minus $187,310. This latter amount was an amount the Judge ruled was improperly paid by the company to the estate. The Judge also ruled that the employee was not required to provide the collateral mortgage. The estate trustee felt that this went against the will.

The appeal by the estate trustee

The appellant submitted that the application judge made the following mistakes:

  • he treated the respondent as a beneficiary as opposed to a favoured buyer;
  • he ignored the need of a collateral mortgage;
  • he approved the respondent’s evidence about the amount to be attributed to the deceased owner’s wages for the purposes of computing the earnings of the company; as well as
  • he incorrectly subtracted from the sales price the $187,310 paid out of the company to the estate.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario did not agree with any of these grounds for appeal.

The reasons were given by the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Beneficiary vs favoured buyer – The appellate court did not find any error in the lower court ruling on this. The Court of Appeal for Ontario noted that the will did not try to maximize the value of the business. It did not state that the estate trustee had to run a marketing effort to obtain the best price under the circumstances.

You would expect this to be the case in any sale by either an estate trustee or a receiver or licensed insolvency trustee. The appeal court noted this absence of intention. Rather, they agreed with the lower court that the intention was for the long-time employee to buy the business under the formula in the will.

Collateral mortgage – The evidence before the lower court was that at the time the will was written, the long-time employee did not own a home. The will also did not have any language about what minimum amount of equity the long term employee’s home had to have to provide for the collateral mortgage security. There was no argument that the lower court judge had the right to apply commercially reasonable terms. So, since the will was so unclear on what wording and real value the collateral mortgage security had to have, the lower court judge ruled that it would be meaningless and was unnecessary in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed again with the lower court judge.

The owner’s salary adds back to normalize earnings – The evidence was that at trial, both the appellant and respondent provided expert witness reports on this issue. The lower court judge preferred the respondent’s expert evidence. The appellant took issue with this. The Court of Appeal found that the lower court judge had the right to rely on one or the other of the expert’s reports and made a judgment call. There was nothing in that decision to be overturned.

Payment of $187,310 – The appellant’s position was that this payment would one day be rectified by the company recording this payment as a dividend. The appellant stated that the company had the right to pay dividends, which it had in the past. The lower court judge agreed that, as long as the payment of dividends did not render the company insolvent, it could do so.

The lower court judge also found that in the past the company had paid a dividend. However, it did not characterize this payment as a dividend, but rather, just payment to the estate. The lower court judge ruled that the purchaser should get the benefit of those funds having been stripped out of the company by a reduction in the purchase price of that same amount.

It turned out that the estate trustee caused the company to make that payment to the estate so that the estate could then pay out those funds to support the deceased’s widow. The company did not record that payment as a dividend or as salary to the widow. The lower court drew a distinction between dividends and gratuitous payments from the company’s bank account. The appeal court found that decision was within his discretion and there is no basis to interfere with the lower court judge’s finding.

So, the appeal court dismissed the appeal entirely and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $10,000.

Summary

As I stated at the beginning, there are a lot of similarities between acting as an estate trustee and administering an insolvency file. Disputes normally arise in insolvency files. As this case shows, disputes also arise regularly in the administration of a deceased estate.

As a result of the similarities, we started this year Smith Estate Trustee Ontario. We currently have several estate trustee administrations underway. Our mix of empathy, experience and impartiality provides us with a distinct viewpoint. We have the capability to appropriately administer a deceased estate. Through our efforts, we minimize problems and accomplish outcomes for all stakeholders in an economical way.

We provide a full range of services to provide solutions for the complex Estate issues to end the pain and frustration the stakeholders are experiencing. We apply our expertise and creative thinking to take care of all details to end your pain and achieve the goals of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders. Contact Smith Estate Trustee Ontario today for your free consultation. Get our no cost full-scale analysis of your issues and our recommended options to solve your problems allowing you to move forward confidently. Check out our website by clicking HERE.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

UNDISCHARGED BANKRUPT: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE

undischarged bankrupt
undischarged bankrupt

If you would prefer to hear an audio version of this undischarged bankrupt Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom and click on the podcast

Undischarged bankrupt introduction

I recently read a Manitoba court decision issued in late October about the position taken by a judgment creditor in an undischarged bankrupt’s hearing. The creditor holding the judgment realized that the bankrupt’s discharge would discharge that debt. So, they tried to convince the court that their debt fit into one of the limited classes of debt that is not discharged by the bankrupt discharge.

That court case reminded me that is not so unusual. Many times a creditor who holds a judgment against the undischarged bankrupt tries to bootstrap their position. One of the leading cases cited by the Manitoba court is a 2018 decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to describe the bankruptcy discharge process, the position taken by the judgment creditor and what the Court has to say about that.

How bankruptcies work in Canada

The Canadian bankruptcy legislation is open for an insolvent and not viable company, or the insolvent, honest but unfortunate person can obtain relief. Subject to trust claimants’ rights and secured creditors, the company or person is assigning all of their unencumbered assets to the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee). In return, the bankrupt person can have all of their debts discharged, subject to certain exceptions.

The bankruptcy discharge is amongst the primary advantages of relief under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). The discharge is vital to the bankruptcy procedure. Debtors, after bankruptcy, can wipe the slate tidy as well as begin over. This is a central concept under the BIA law. That is the essence of the bankruptcy discharge meaning.

A bankruptcy discharge is when the bankrupt is released under Canadian bankruptcy law from his or her financial debts as part of the bankruptcy discharge procedure. Some people think that it is the declaring for bankruptcy that releases the insolvent from obligation. This is not the case, it is the discharge that releases a bankrupt from debt.

A bankruptcy discharge provides the discharge of all unsecured debts, except for:

  • support payments to a previous partner or children;
  • penalties or fines enforced by the Court;
  • financial debts arising from fraud or fraudulent breach of trust;
  • student loans if less than seven years have actually passed since the bankrupt stopped being a part-time or full-time student.

Can an undischarged bankrupt leave the country?

If you are an undischarged bankrupt, you can travel. There are no restrictions on you leaving or returning to Canada if you are travelling for work or on vacation. Just make sure that your travel plans do not interfere with your legal obligation and your duties in your personal bankruptcy case, including:

  • attending a meeting of creditors (if one is required);
  • showing up for your mandatory counselling sessions;
  • submitting your monthly income reports to the Trustee;
  • remitting any surplus income payments you are required to make;
  • providing your financial information to the Trustee so that your pre and post-bankruptcy income tax returns can be filed;
  • being able to respond to any inquiries from your Trustee; and
  • attending in Court for your bankruptcy discharge hearing in an opposed discharge application.

    undischarged bankrupt
    undischarged bankrupt

Undischarged bankrupt: What is an undischarged debt?

When a bankrupt is discharged from bankruptcy, the individual is released from the legal obligation to repay their different types of debt that is unsecured and existed on the day that the bankruptcy was filed, except for the following types of original debt:

  • Alimony or support payments to a previous spouse or for the children;
  • Fines or monetary penalties imposed by the Court;
  • Financial obligations arising from fraud, misappropriation or defalcation; or
  • Student loans if less than seven years have actually passed since the person stopped being a full or part-time student.

So other than for the small category of debts that are not discharged, once the bankrupt is discharged from their bankruptcy, they do not have to make payments on debts that existed at the date of bankruptcy.

Undischarged bankrupt: Trustee opposed the discharge

A first-time bankrupt, who does not need to pay surplus income, is entitled to an automatic discharge after 9 months. This assumes that they have lived up to all of their obligations as an undischarged bankrupt and fully cooperated with the LIT. If this first-time bankrupt is subject to surplus income, then they must pay it for 21 months before they are entitled to a discharge. Longer timelines apply for a second or more time bankrupt.

If the Trustee has evidence that the bankrupt has not been forthright and fully cooperative, or has actually committed one or more bankruptcy offences, then the Trustee has a duty to oppose the bankrupt’s discharge.

Notice of opposition to discharge

Similarly, any unsecured creditor can oppose the bankrupt’s discharge. The grounds of opposition would likewise be evidence of lack of honesty or that one or more offences have been committed. The process for a creditor opposing the discharge of the bankrupt is by filing a notice of opposition to discharge.

In either a Trustee or creditor opposed discharge, the bankrupt’s application for discharge must be heard in Bankruptcy Court. For more on the discharge process, you can read about it in one of my previous Brandon’s Blogs.

undischarged bankrupt
undischarged bankrupt

The judgement creditor

Often, a judgment creditor thinks they have a higher position in the pecking order than other unsecured creditors because they have a judgment. They may have even registered the judgement against the title to real estate owned wholly or partially by the defendant. Unfortunately, upon the bankruptcy of a person, all enforcement proceedings on a judgment must stop.

The judgment for a debt, in bankruptcy, is merely a piece of paper that proves you have unsecured debt. Nothing else. Anyone who understands the litigation process knows that there is a big difference between getting a judgment and collecting on it.

Judgement creditors may take a keener interest in the bankruptcy proceedings, including opposing the discharge from bankruptcy. The reasons for this are twofold:

  • The judgment creditor has already spent time in court, money on legal fees and still has not collected their debt, so they are more invested in this person’s bankruptcy than someone who did not go the court route.
  • They are hoping that they can somehow fit their money judgment only into a position where they can claim that the debt is one not released by an order of discharge.

It is this second reason that this Manitoba court case, and the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision relied upon by the Manitoba court, revolves around.

Undischarged bankrupt: Can more evidence be introduced by a judgment creditor at the discharge hearing?

Most judgements that I see in a debt settlement program under the BIA or bankruptcy tend to fall into the same category. A service or good was supplied and not paid for. A contract was entered into and was breached. That is just normal business. There is no fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, defalcation, fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent breach of trust.

It is simply someone owes money and didn’t pay. The plaintiff entered all of the evidence they thought was important, the defendant either defended or allowed for default judgment to be obtained because they did not defend. Regardless, the court ordered the defendant to pay the money.

The judgement creditor was unpaid and then one day received the Trustee’s notice of bankruptcy in the mail. The judgment creditor was incensed. The creditor took an active interest in the bankruptcy proceedings and maybe even served as a bankruptcy inspector. The bankrupt person is now entitled to apply for his or her discharge from bankruptcy.

The judgment creditor is unhappy because they now know that they are receiving either nothing or a small dividend from the Trustee compared to the debt to be written off. So they now oppose the bankrupt’s discharge and try to get new evidence submitted to the Bankruptcy Court to somehow prove that their judgment is a claim that is not extinguished by the person’s bankruptcy discharge.

This is what the Court of Appeal decision was all about. Can you introduce new evidence at a bankruptcy discharge hearing?

The case I am referring to, Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company v. Rodriguez, 2018 ONCA 171 (CanLII). The appeals court said that the answer is no. You can read the entire decision here if you like. The Court of Appeal essentially said that the Court is allowed to look at:

  • the judgment
  • the proof that would certainly have been entered as evidence at the time in the pleadings
  • as well as that evidence which has been led in the bankruptcy discharge hearing

to analyze whether the judgment debt falls within an exclusion to the general discharge rules. The Court also said that in a bankruptcy discharge hearing, the application judge was limited to looking at the judgment, the pleadings, the statement of claim and any statement of defence, to determine whether the judgment fell into the class of those debts not released by a discharge from bankruptcy. New evidence is not allowed.

This finding has been followed and further clarified. It is now apparent that the only purpose of a bankrupt’s application for discharge is to consider the bankrupt’s application. It is not a forum to attempt to advance new or amended claims.

undischarged bankrupt
undischarged bankrupt

Undischarged bankrupt summary

I hope you enjoyed this Brandon’s Blog on the undischarged bankrupt. Are you in need of financial restructuring? The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur or the person who has too much personal debt. You are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges.

It is not your fault that you are in this situation. You have been only shown the old ways that do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team uses new modern ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief freedom.

The stress placed upon you is huge. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. We know that we can help you the way we take the load off of your shoulders and devise a debt settlement plan.

We know that people facing financial problems need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team. That is why we can develop a restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain you are facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious about finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.

Call us now for a free consultation. We will get you or your company back on the road to healthy stress-free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

undischarged bankrupt

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE IN ONTARIO: REMARKABLE CARE NEEDED TO TAKE OVER A CLAIM

bankruptcy trustee in ontario
bankruptcy trustee in ontario

If you would prefer to listen to an audio version of this bankruptcy trustee in Ontario Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast.

Bankruptcy trustee in Ontario: Introduction

As a bankruptcy trustee in Ontario (now called a licensed insolvency trustee ), there are many times where our investigation indicates that the bankrupt (usually a bankrupt corporation) has a claim against another party. The claim may very well be a good one worthy of pursuing. However, like with any potential litigation, there could be not enough funds to pay for pursuing that claim in the Court, or it may be unwise for a bankruptcy trustee in Ontario (Trustee) to assume the litigation risk.

In cases like this, the licensed insolvency trustee can offer up the opportunity to the creditors to take on the action in their own name. One or more creditors can get an order under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (BIA) from the Registrar in Bankruptcy, authorizing the assignment to them by the licensed insolvency trustee of the bankrupt company‘s right to advance that claim and if necessary, sue.

Without going into all the finer details and circumstances, any creditor or group of creditors who obtain that right can keep any amount collected under that claim up to the total of their claim against the bankrupt company plus the costs they spent in obtaining that award. Any surplus must be paid over to the bankruptcy trustee in Ontario.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario highlights an interesting issue regarding the interplay between advancing such a claim by a creditor and the limitation period in Ontario.

Bankruptcy trustee in Ontario case background information

The Ridel family used an investment and stock brokerage company called e3m Investments Inc. (e3m). In December 2006, the Ridels issued a Statement of Claim versus their account representative, as well as his employer, e3m. The action was for negligence, breach of contract and violation of fiduciary obligation in the monitoring of their financial investment accounts.

After a ten-day court hearing, judgment was issued against e3m as well as the account representative in Ridel v. Cassin, 2013 ONSC 2279. The judgment was especially scathing of both the account rep and e3m. The judgement, in the amount of $1,036,245.85, was upheld on appeal. As a result, the account representative needed to make an insolvency filing. My Firm administered the successfully completed Division I restructuring Proposal of the account representative. Given the judgement, he needed to do an insolvency filing and it was in his best interests to attempt to restructure to avoid bankruptcy. The Ridel family controlled the voting in his successful Proposal. e3m filed for bankruptcy on January 20, 2015.

The bankruptcy trustee in Ontario case before the Court of Appeal

On July 31, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in Ridel v. Goldberg, 2019 ONCA 636. The underlying claim was one the bankrupt company may have had against its Director and majority shareholder.

On October 25, 2016, the Ridels, as an unsecured creditor of e3m, got an order under s. 38 of the BIA. They obtained an assignment of the claim of e3m against its sole Director, a Mr. Goldberg. Since e3m was found liable under the Ridel judgement, e3m could have a claim and institute proceedings against its Director, Mr. Goldberg.

The s. 38 order supplied the Ridels with the legal authority to assert e3m’s claim against Mr. Goldberg “to recover the damages for which e3m became liable pursuant to [the 2013 Judgment, as amended] in their own name and at their own expense and risk, based on Mr. Goldberg’s failure to fulfil his obligations as a director and officer of e3m by abdicating his responsibility to supervise the Ridels’ accounts at e3m”.

The Ridels launched their lawsuit proceedings in the lower Court against Mr. Goldberg the day they obtained the s. 38 order, October 25, 2016. The Ridels were trying to get a summary judgement. Mr. Goldberg raised several defences, including, the Ridels’ claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B (Limitations Act).

The lower court judge dismissed the Ridels’ action on two fronts. First, the judge found that there were concerns about needing a trial. Second, the lower court judge agreed that the claim should be dismissed because of the expiration of a two-year limitation period The Ridels appealed the lower court’s decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

bankruptcy trustee in ontario
bankruptcy trustee in ontario

The fascinating part (for me anyway) of the Court of Appeal’s decision

The unanimous Court of Appeal ruling agreed with the lower court judge’s decision that the action the Ridels took by way of an assignment document from e3m’s licensed insolvency trustee was statute-barred under the Limitations Act. However, the appeal court review of the lower court decision disagreed with the reasons given by the lower court. Upon agreeing that the Ridel’s action should be dismissed based on it being barred by the Limitations Act, the appeal court did not wade into whether or not the lower court judge’s decision was correct that summary judgement should not be granted as there was a triable issue.

The arguments given for the limitation period are somewhat complex. I will attempt to summarize them here so as not to be confusing. The lower court judge held that the Ridels as applicants knew of the existence of the potential claim of e3m against its Director as early as in July 2006. Since they did not launch the e3m claim in a court action until October 2016. Hence, the limitation period of 2 years made that claim statute-barred.

The Ridels state that the limitation period cannot have actually begun up until after e3m was bankrupt. Before then, they could not take an assignment of any claim from e3m’s licensed insolvency trustee, especially a potential claim by the company against its Director (and Officer).

They also stated it is impossible to get an s. 38 order before the company actually is bankrupt.

The lawyer for the Ridels did not argue the testing of the timing of their very own understanding of the Director’s misdeed in regard to e3m. Rather, he focussed on the fact that the Ridels were not in a place to do anything concerning it, at a minimum, until the bankruptcy of e3m.

The appeal court went through a detailed analysis of the relevant statutes and case law. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the action launched was not a claim by the Ridels personally, but rather the company’s claim of which they took a court-approved assignment. So the appeal court agreed substantially with the Ridels that they could not have started their action until they took the assignment from the e3m licensed insolvency trustee.

When was e3m’s knowledge of its claim?

So the appeal court said what is important, since it is e3m’s claim and not the claim of the Ridels, when did e3m first become aware of the potential claim against its Director? The appeal court stated it fully understood why the Director would not have had e3m sue him or otherwise enjoin him in the original claim against the account rep and e3m. However, when did e3m first become aware of the potential of its claim?

On the proof in this matter, regardless of the Ridels’ or Goldbergs’ understanding of the case or his aversion to act against himself in support of e3m, at the very least, by April 2013, every one of the other e3m investors/shareholders had received a copy of the Reasons for Decision and Judgment against the account rep and e3m. It included different referrals to the Director’s misbehaviour. Those investors had the capacity to make e3m file a claim against the Director.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario judges determined that e3m recognized that: 1. an injury had actually happened; 2. its loss was brought on by an act or omission; 3. the act or omission was purportedly that of the Director, and 4. an action against the Director was a proper way to treat it. Regardless of the Director’s control to protect against such a lawsuit, the investors might have taken control of e3m’s board of directors and cause e3m to make such a case versus Goldberg.

So the appeal court decided that e3m first recognized that it may have a claim against the Director in April 2013, but the action was not commenced until October 2016. Accordingly, it was outside of the 2 year limitation period and the action was statute-barred.

So what does this mean for a bankruptcy trustee in Ontario?

As the bankruptcy trustee in Ontario in either a corporate bankruptcy or personal bankruptcy, many times we find as a result of our investigation that the bankrupt may have a claim against another party. More often than not, we either do not have sufficient funds or are not prepared to risk the funds in the Estate to the litigation risk. So, what we do is communicate with all known creditors to advise of the potential claim and that the licensed insolvency trustee is either unwilling or unable to act upon it. Accordingly, we are giving the creditors a chance to apply to the Court to take an assignment of such action under s.38 of the BIA.

Creditors seriously considering taking over the bankrupt’s claim must seriously consider the issue of whether or not launching a court action will be met with a defence that the claim is statute-barred, amongst other defences that may be available to the defendant(s). The Court of Appeal for Ontario has clearly communicated that the creditor taking an assignment of the bankrupt’s claim, cannot be in a better position than the bankrupt itself. The first knowledge that a claim exists will be when the bankrupt first had the knowledge, not the date that the creditor obtained the right to sue or any other date.

Bankruptcy trustee in Ontario Canada conclusion

The business world contains normal daily risks. This case clearly shows that. Are your company’s viability and solvency being threatened by claims against it, or for any other reason?

Is your company experiencing financial problems and requires debt relief? Are you on the brink of filing for bankruptcy just like e3m was because of your debts? Or are you an individual that has too much debt and you are looking at personal bankruptcy as your solution? Don’t wait until it is too late to properly restructure your company’s financial affairs. You don’t have to be another one filing bankruptcy in Canada. We can show you the various alternatives to bankruptcy.

As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals who have met the requirements of the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada to obtain a trustee licence. One of those requirements to be trustees in bankruptcy is to pass an oral board of examination.

Insolvency trustee’s operations are licensed, authorized and their duties supervised by the federal government to offer insolvency advice and to implement solutions under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). We are a licensed insolvency trustee operating in Ontario Canada and we will help you to select what is best for you to free you from your debt issues.

Contact the Ira Smith Team today so we can use our qualifications to get you or your company the debt relief that you deserve. We will eliminate the anxiousness, tension, discomfort and pain from your life that your bills and your cash problems have caused. With the unique roadmap, we develop just for you, you can eliminate your debts and we will promptly return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

407 ETR RATES: THE ONLY GUARANTEED TO WORK 407 ETR DEBT SETTLEMENT PLAN

407 etr rates

We are trying something new. At the bottom is an audiogram of this 407 etr rates Brandon’s blog. If you would prefer to listen to it, and not read it, scroll down to the bottom and press on the play button. Let us know what you think by sending us a message in the Question box below.

407 etr rates: Introduction

The purpose of this 407 etr rates is not to tell you what the new toll rates are. The simple answer is that they are always going up! Rather, it is an update to our earlier blogs for people who are having trouble paying their 407 toll payment.

As you probably know, the 407 etr has an arrangement with the Province of Ontario where if you have unpaid 407 etr charges, you will be put on plate denial the next time you have to renew your vehicle plate. For many, being denied a plate renewal means the end of your ability to earn an income.

Before the update, a bit of history to put everything into perspective for you.

407 etr rates: Our prior blogs

We previously wrote about how the 407 etr was trying to use the provincial law as a collection tool, even when a person filed for a debt settlement restructuring consumer proposal or for personal bankruptcy. Our prior blogs were:

I won’t repeat the history here as you can check those blogs yourself. Suffice to say they argued in Court, unsuccessfully, that the Province had the right to enforce its own plate issuance rules.

The lower Court and the Court of Appeal for Ontario disagreed with their right to enforce the plate issuance rules when it was a blatant action to collect an ordinary unsecured debt caught in the priority scheme of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA). The Courts also found that they were trying to trump Federal law through Provincial law, which is illegal. Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear their appeal, so that is where it ended, sort of.

407 etr rates: So that is where it ended, sort of

With those rulings, the 407 etr stated that they would comply and drafted a policy which was an extremely literal wording of the BIA. It technically complied with the Court rulings, but still had the effect of being very draconian and not changing their administrative policy.

The debts of an insolvent person, who has made a debt restructuring consumer proposal or bankruptcy filing, are not discharged until the insolvency process is complete. For a debt settlement plan, it is when the person finishes making their payments and receives their Certificate of Full Performance. In a bankruptcy, it is when they receive their absolute discharge.

How those processes work deserves their own blogs. Suffice to say the processes can take anywhere from a minimum of 9 months (first-time bankruptcy, no surplus income, no assets and no discharge opposition) up to 5 years (debt settlement plan). So the plate denial actually stayed in force for a long time.

The 407 etr also set up a very document intensive 407 etr login process that made applying for the eventual rescission of the plate denial very cumbersome.

407 etr rates: The class action lawsuit

The firm that independently runs Highway 407 ETR in the Greater Toronto Area agreed to pay $8 million to clear up this claim. The settlement, approved in November 2016, finishes the litigation that began in 2012.

The lawsuit affirmed that the toll freeway consortium unlawfully used provincial regulations to stop motorists that were insolvent or bankrupt from restoring their automobile permit plates. 407 ETR refutes it did anything incorrect and does not confess obligation in approving the out of court negotiation.

407 etr rates: Now for the update – The only 407 etr debt settlement plan guaranteed to actually work

The licensed insolvency administrator (LIT) acting as either the bankruptcy Trustee or consumer proposal Administrator, acting as either the bankruptcy Trustee or consumer proposal Administrator, will issue the Notice of Bankruptcy or Consumer Proposal. 407 ETR must be listed on your sworn Statement of Affairs as a creditor. It will then be sent a copy of the notice by the LIT.

Upon receipt, 407 ETR will end from plate rejection any amounts still owing from before the date of filing either for bankruptcy or a consumer proposal. This includes toll charges, interest, penalties and costs. They will then advise the Ministry of Transportation to upgrade their documents to show this change ending plate denial. This is a major change. You do not have to have completed your full insolvency process to get the lifting of the plate denial. This is the way fairness dictates it always should have been from the start.

There is a simple rule that you have to follow. It is the same rule that you need to follow in dealing with any leases or secured debt that you wish to continue to carry and that you can afford to. That is, you must not have any amounts owing to 407 etr for charges after your filing date which would qualify for plate denial.

407 etr rates: Are you worried about or need relief from plate denial

  1. Are you under plate denial, or afraid you will be soon?
  2. Will plate denial negatively affect your income and you need debt relief fast?
  3. Do you have other debts that need to be addressed too?
  4. Do you need budgeting help?
  5. Are you already experiencing financial difficulties?

If you answered yes to just one of these questions, you need a professional trustee. If yes, call the Ira Smith Team. Our approach for each file is to create an end result where Starting Over, Starting Now takes place. This starts the minute you are at our front door.

We always offer a free consultation. We listen to your issues and give you a full range of realistic options to help you get out of debt. Finding the best solution for YOU is just the right thing to do to help you meet total debt freedom.

The earlier you contact us, the more options we will have to carry out. Whether it is a corporate restructuring or personal debt settlement through a consumer proposal, the goal is to avoid bankruptcy. However, if bankruptcy turns out to be the best option, we can assist there too.

You’re simply one phone call away from taking the necessary steps to get back to leading a healthy, balanced hassle-free life, ending the pain and stress you are feeling forever. Call Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. today for your free consultation.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY IN CANADA: INTENSE MENTAL HEALTH & DISCHARGED BANKRUPTCY

anthony bourdain

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: Introduction

With filing for bankruptcy in Canada, if a person’s discharge is opposed, there must be a court hearing. At the hearing, the court will decide if the discharge will occur. Once the discharge is granted, the person will be relieved of his or her debts as of the day he or she filed for bankruptcy (with certain exceptions) and will be free to start rebuilding his or her credit rating and financial future.

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: Court of Appeal for Ontario decision

The purpose of my blog is to describe a March 2018 Court of Appeal for Ontario decision, Kuczera (Re), 2018 ONCA 322 (CanLII). This is an important decision in how mental health issues intersect with the bankruptcy discharge process.

Mr. Kuczera’s financial problems began with a costly and hotly contested divorce proceedings. With his debts mounting and the divorce proceedings continuing, Mr. Kuczera filed a consumer proposal. As a result of the ongoing family law battle, his mental health deteriorated and he became clinically depressed. He was no longer able to cope with life and was unable to work.

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: Defaulting on the consumer proposal

Up to this point, he was making the consumer proposal payments. His default in the consumer proposal caused it to be annulled. The consumer proposal was his attempt to get out of bankruptcy, as he first used filing for bankruptcy in Canada with an assignment in bankruptcy first. So, Mr. Kuczera now remained an undischarged bankrupt.

filing for bankruptcy in canada

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: The bankruptcy discharge hearing

Mr. Kuczera represented himself in Bankruptcy Court on his discharge hearing. He tried to show the Registrar in Bankruptcy that he tried his best to live up to all of his bankruptcy obligations to the licensed insolvency trustee, but due to his mental health issues, he could not. Unfortunately, his evidence was only a basic report from his psychiatrist.

The Registrar did not grant an absolute discharge. Rather, based on the evidence in front of her, she ordered that a discharge be granted only after payment of the outstanding balance under the consumer proposal, and one other minor condition. The Registrar went on to state that he was held responsible for his situation.

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: Appeal of the Registrar’s decision

Mr. Kuczera was able to hire a lawyer to appeal the Registrar’s decision to a Judge sitting in Bankruptcy Court. The Judge refused to consider fresh evidence in the form of more descriptive psychiatric reports supporting the summary findings presented at the original discharge hearing. The Judge dismissed Mr. Kuczera’s appeal.

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: Appeal of the Judge’s decision

He now had his lawyer appeal the Judge’s decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the approach of the appeal judge. The Court of Appeal could not understand why the appeal judge would not allow the more detailed reports from Mr. Kuczera’s treating psychiatrist. These new detailed reports were further to the summary report provided to the Registrar.

The Court of Appeal went on to say that neither the Registrar nor the appeal judge gave proper weight to the psychiatric evidence. It also went on to say that a discharge condition requiring Mr. Kuczera to pay the payments due under the consumer proposal would not be “difficult”, as described by the Registrar. Rather, the Court of Appeal said that it would be “crushing”.

filing for bankruptcy in canada

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: What the Court of Appeal found

So the Court of Appeal found that:

  • the appeal judge erred by not considering the fresh psychiatric report evidence;
  • The need for the bankrupt to pay the balance of the consumer proposal payments would be crushing; and
  • The fresh psychiatric evidence was compelling.

Given the length of time that Mr. Kuczera remained in bankruptcy, and considering the above factors, the three-judge panel in the Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously agreed that Mr. Kuczera gets his absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: Mental health issues

Mental health issues are at the forefront of the news. Most recently, both Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain committed suicide because of mental health issues. I believe that as society recognizes mental health issues as a legitimate illness or disability, you will see it influencing Bankruptcy Court decisions. That certainly was the case for Mr. Kuczera.

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: Debt after your bankruptcy discharge

After receiving your bankruptcy discharge, NOBODY can try to collect this debt again. Discharged debt cannot appear on your credit report as anything other than a zero balance. Sometimes collection agencies report a discharged debt to the credit bureaus, hoping you will pay off the debt and not correct the information with the credit bureaus. The debt will still incorrectly appear on your credit report.

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: Discharged debt and your credit report


When discharged debt re-appears on your credit reports, it affects your credit score and can result in higher interest rates or credit denials. Sometimes debt collectors buy discharged debt, knowing they can’t collect on it, but hoping you don’t know that.

These debt collectors may tell you that the discharge doesn’t apply to them because they are not the original creditor. Don’t be fooled. Creditors who attempt to collect a discharged debt are violating a court order. The court can stop them, and they may even have to pay damages.

Discharged debt should not show on your credit report except as a zero balance – Monitor your credit report and be proactive. A discharged debt is not valid and is not collectible.

Filing for bankruptcy in Canada: Do you have too much debt?

I hope that you have found this information helpful. Bankruptcy is the last thing we try to do for a person in financial difficulty. If caught early enough, we can get involved in a debt settlement restructuring program for you.

The Ira Smith Team knows that you are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges. The stress placed upon you is enormous. We understand your pain points.

Contact the Ira Smith Team today. We know how to solve your financial challenges, remove your pain and put things back on a healthy path. Contact us today for your free consultation so that we can save your life, Starting Over Starting Now.filing for bankruptcy in canada

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CREDIT REPORT ONTARIO COMPANIES CAN REPORT EVEN IF YOU CAN’T BE SUED!

Credit report Ontario: Introduction

My Brandon’s Blog describes a Court decision that if you owe money, even if it is too late for you to be sued, it can still show up on your credit report Ontario. This is a very interesting case from the Court of Appeal for Ontario for consumers and consumer reporting.

The case was an attempt by Mr. Grant to have the credit reporting agencies Equifax and TransUnion remove from his credit report debts that were more than two years old on the basis that because he can’t be sued anymore, the most accurate reporting would be to cut those debts from his credit report. He argued that since the Ontario Limitations Act provided for a two-year limitation for when he could be sued on certain debts, therefore, any debts more than two years old for which you haven’t been sued should be removed from his credit report.

Limitations Act vs. Consumer Reporting Act

The credit reporting agencies successfully argued against that as the lower court ruled against Mr. Grant. He was now appealing to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Ontario Consumer Reporting Act states that debts up to seven years old can be reported and there lies the discrepancy. The Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed with the lower court and said that just because the Limitation Act says that you can’t be sued after two years that has no application to the Consumer Reporting Act that says all valid debts can be reported for up to seven years.

What the Court of Appeal said

The Court of Appeal went on to say just because a creditor misses the deadline or chooses not to sue within the two-year period it doesn’t mean that the debt still isn’t owed. The Court of Appeal also went on to say that under the Consumer Reporting Act people have the right to communicate with Equifax and TransUnion to have errors removed from their credit report. Unfortunately for Mr. Grant in his case, this was not an error.

What should you do if you have too much debt?

Do you have too many debts causing you discomfort on your credit report? Is your credit report creating a bigger hardship for yourself? For help with your debt issues contact Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. We’re your best defence against debt. Make an appointment for a free, no-obligation consultation and you can be well on your way to a debt free life Starting Over, Starting Now. Give us a call today.

credit report ontario

Credit Report Ontario: The decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

 

CITATION: Grant v. Equifax Canada Co., 2016 ONCA 500

DATE: 20160623

DOCKET: C61664

Rouleau, van Rensburg and Benotto JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Gary Grant

Applicant (Appellant)

and

Equifax Canada Co., Trans Union of Canada,

Ministry of Government Services and Consumer Services

Respondents (Respondents in Appeal)

Gary Grant, acting in person

Stephen Schwartz, for Equifax Canada Co.

Alan Melamud, for Trans Union of Canada

Domenico Polla, for the Ministry of Government Services and Consumer Services

Mahmud Jamal and Raphael Eghan, for the intervener Canadian Bankers Association

Heard: June 21, 2016

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Kofi N. Barnes of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 2, 2015.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant brought an application in the Superior Court seeking an order that two consumer reporting agencies remove debts over two years old that were shown on his credit report, where no legal action had been commenced or judgment obtained in respect of the debts. He relied on the provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, and in particular the basic limitation period of two years applicable to the commencement of a proceeding in respect of a claim.

[2] The appellant argued in the court below, and on appeal, that this two year limitation period should apply in interpreting the provisions of the Consumer Reporting Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.33 (the “CRA”). He asserts that, in requiring consumer reporting agencies to adopt all procedures reasonable for ensuring accuracy and fairness in the contents of their consumer reports (s. 9(1) of the CRA), the Act anticipates that debts will not be listed where a limitation period for their enforcement through legal action has expired. The most accurate record of a debt, he says, is one that has been or can be confirmed by an order or judgment of the court. When debts are included in consumer reports, where no legal action is possible, consumers are adversely impacted in their efforts to borrow money and to conduct other business.

[3] The respondents assert that the application judge did not err in his dismissal of the appellant’s application, on the basis that the basic limitation period has no application to the statutory framework for consumer credit reporting in Ontario, and that there was no violation by the consumer reporting agencies of the requirements of the CRA.

[4] We agree.

[5] The CRA provides for a regulatory scheme for the fair reporting of information regarding an individual’s history of credit activities. The CRA requires the registration of consumer reporting agencies, permits consumer reporting information to be provided only for certain prescribed purposes, and sets out standards for consumer reporting.

[6] The Limitations Act, 2002, by contrast, applies to bar “claims pursued in court proceedings” that are commenced outside the applicable limitation period. The Act does not apply to the CRA, whether expressly or by implication. Indeed, the CRA contains its own specific provisions prohibiting the inclusion of certain information in consumer reports, including debts or collections more than seven years old, unless confirmation that the debt or collection is not barred has been obtained. The CRA expressly contemplates that debts not reduced to judgment that are up to seven years old may be reported (see s. 9(3)(f)). This makes sense, as the passing of a limitation period does not extinguish a debt; it only precludes the commencement of a court proceeding for its enforcement. As such, the reporting of debts after a limitation period has passed, is not inconsistent with the purposes of the CRA, and is expressly contemplated by its terms.

[7] Under the Act, consumers, such as the appellant, have access to the information contained in their files, and a mechanism by which they can dispute information contained in a report to the consumer reporting agency, and to the Registrar of Consumer Reporting Agencies, with a right to apply to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for a hearing if they are aggrieved by a Registrar’s decision.

[8] The appellant availed himself of the right to dispute information, and was able to have certain stale information removed from his consumer reports. There was no basis, however, for requiring the removal of information concerning debts simply because they were more than two years old.

[9] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

CREDIT REPORT ONTARIO

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

407 ETR DEBT SETTLEMENT: OUR NEWEST GUILT FREE WAY TO DO IT

407, 407 ETR, 407 ETR debt, 407 ETR debt settlement, Matthew David Moore, bankruptcy, Supreme Court of Canada, SCC, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, BIA, 407 debt, debt settlement, 407 debt settlement, plate denial, Moore Decision, Highway 407 Act, professional trustee, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, Superintendent of Bankruptcy, bankruptcy alternative, credit counselling, debt consolidation, consumer proposal, 407 ETR bill, starting over starting now, Ira Smith Trustee407 ETR debt settlement

This 407 ETR debt settlement blog was reviewed earlier this week by Mr. Brian Empey, Partner, Goodmans LLP. We wish to express our thanks to Mr. Empey who made a valuable suggestion which we incorporated.

We have updated this blog for 2018 where 407 ETR has implemented some changes. Check out our blog 407 ETR RATES: THE ONLY 407 ETR RATES DEBT SETTLEMENT PLAN GUARANTEED TO ACTUALLY WORK for the update.

 

In January 2014 in our blog titled 407ETR FAIRNESS-ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL ENSURES FRESH START we described to you the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 407 ETR Concession Company Limited v. Superintendent of Bankruptcy (In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Matthew David Moore) (the Moore Decision).

The highway’s owners appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). On Friday, November 13, 2015, the SCC released three decisions all dealing with the same basic issue: does the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) take paramountcy over provincial laws purporting to deal with the issue of debt and bankruptcy in Canada. The SCC answer was a resounding YES!

What did the SCC decide about the provincial law about 407 debt settlement?

The SCC dismissed the appeal of the ETR. The SCC considered whether the plate denial provisions of the Highway 407 Act conflicted with the discharge provisions of the BIA. ETR’s position was that provincial law about plate denial should apply following a person’s discharge from bankruptcy. The Attorneys General for several provinces, including the Province of Ontario, advanced positions in support of the provinces’ jurisdiction to legislate in vehicle licensing.

The SCC’s decision upheld the Moore Decision which found that the discharge provisions of the BIA override the plate denial provisions of the Highway 407 Act.

What is the effect on ETR debt settlement?

The effect of the SCC’s decision is that pre-bankruptcy amounts owed to the ETR are deemed to be provable claims under the BIA and can no longer be collected through plate denial under the Highway 407 Act following a customer’s discharge from bankruptcy. Therefore, 407 etr debt settlement is possible.

Where a person has been discharged from bankruptcy and has pre-bankruptcy amounts in plate denial, which are provable claims under the BIA, 407 ETR will credit these amounts (plus interest and fees incurred on those amounts) on the person’s 407 ETR bill, upon receipt of a Notice of Bankruptcy, and an Order of Discharge or a Certificate of Discharge.

In both cases, once the amount owing is credited, then the person is free to get plate renewal from the Province.

What will 407 ETR do next?

407 ETR must and is abiding by the SCC decision. They will set up a protocol whereby those who have already been discharged from bankruptcy and have been denied a plate renewal will be able to prove they have been discharged, get the 407 ETR debt, including penalty and interest, reversed, and get a plate renewal.

Those who are still in the middle of their bankruptcy proceedings and not yet discharged will be able to apply to have a plate renewal, once they are discharged from bankruptcy and prove it to 407 ETR.

Interestingly enough, there was no evidence whatsoever in any of the Court cases, including this one before the SCC, as to the 407 ETR’s right to deny anyone credit. When you get your transponder, the 407 ETR is actually extending credit to you, in the form of use of the toll highway in return for the toll charges they expect you to pay. It is no different from the bank loaning you money, and expecting you to repay it in full, with interest.

Will 407 ETR deny extending credit to discharged bankrupts? Will they only issue a new transponder to discharged bankrupts who give them a large cash deposit so that use of the 407 ETR will only be on a “cash and carry” basis? We don’t know, they have so far been silent on the issue, but it is still early in the game.

Do you need 407 etr debt settlement and a plan for your other debts too?

Instead of going deeper into debt seek help from a professional trustee, even if you’re not considering bankruptcy at this stage. A trustee in bankruptcy will evaluate your situation and help you to arrive at the best possible solution for your problems, whether that solution is a bankruptcy alternative like credit counselling, debt consolidation or a consumer proposal or bankruptcy. With immediate action and the right plan, the Ira Smith Team can solve your financial problems Starting Over, Starting Now. We’re just a phone call away.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

407 ETR FAIRNESS-ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL ENSURES 407 ETR FRESH START

consumer proposal bankruptcy alternatives trustee bankruptcy and insolvency act vaughan trustee 407 407ETR bankruptcy ontario Ira Smith trustee Receiver Inc1
consumer proposal bankruptcy alternatives trustee bankruptcy and insolvency act vaughan trustee 407 407ETR bankruptcy ontario Ira Smith trustee Receiver Inc1

 

407 ETR407 ETR found out that bankruptcy law is complicated. It not only deals with the facts, but with the spirit of the law. Canada (Superintendent of Bankruptcy) v. 407 ETR Concession Company Limited, 2013 ONCA 769 (Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act CanLII) is a very interesting case.

It involves Matthew David Moore, a truck driver who owned two vehicles and was a frequent user of this toll highway. Mr. Moore owed the money for usage of the toll Highway which he failed to pay. In March 2005 and December 2006, 407ETR sent notices of his non-payment relating to two separate vehicles to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the Province of Ontario (the “Registrar”). As a result, when the vehicle permit for one of the vehicles expired in August 2005, it could not be renewed. However, Mr. Moore continued to use Highway 407 for another 18 months and as of October 2007, he owed $34,977.06.

In November 2007 Mr. Moore made an assignment into bankruptcy. The 407ETR was listed as a creditor but it did not file a proof of claim which would have enabled the 407ETR to make submissions at any hearing into Moore’s discharge from bankruptcy and to share rateably with Moore’s other unsecured creditors in the bankruptcy. After declaring bankruptcy Mr. Moore had an accident and retrained to become a car salesman, which is what he now does for a living. He gave evidence that he needs a vehicle permit in order to do his job and earn a living. In February 2011 Mr. Moore obtained a conditional discharge from bankruptcy. He requested an Ontario Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) vehicle permit but the MTO refused his request due to his outstanding indebtedness to this Highway concession company. On June 21, 2011, Mr. Moore obtained an absolute discharge from bankruptcy. Even though he was discharged from bankruptcy, the MTO refused to issue Mr. Moore a vehicle permit. The alleged conflict, in this case, is between s. 178(2) of the BIA, which releases the discharged bankrupt from most claims, and s. 22(4) of the 407 Act, which permits 407ETR to initiate a process by which the debtor will be denied a vehicle permit until he or she discharges the debt to 407ETR. A lot of legal wrangling ensued and eventually, this matter went to appeal. The issues on appeal were:

(i) Does s. 22(4) of the 407 Act conflict with the operation of s. 178 (2) of the BIA?

(ii) Does s. 22(4) of the 407 Act conflict with the purpose of the bankruptcy and insolvency system because it (a) thwarts the objective of providing the bankrupt with a fresh start or (b) creates a new class of debt that survives bankruptcy and frustrates Parliament’s intention to treat all unsecured creditors equally?

What was the 407 etr ruling?

“For these reasons, I would allow the appeal and, as requested by the appellant, set aside the order of the motions judge. In its place, I would substitute an order that:

(1) the discharge of Moore dated June 21, 2011, released him from all claims provable in bankruptcy, including the toll highway debt as at November 10, 2007, and

(2) the Ministry of Transportation is hereby directed to issue license plates to Moore upon payment of the usual licensing fees.

Further, I would declare that s. 22(4) of the 407 Act is inoperative to the extent that it thwarts the purpose of providing a discharged bankrupt with a fresh start.”

This decision ensured that bankruptcy did provide Mr. Moore with a fresh start. If you are experiencing serious financial problems and are looking for a fresh start, contact Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. today. You can even do some self-study with our bankruptcy faqs. Upon review of your situation, we will provide you with a solid plan for moving forward. Starting Over, Starting Now you can get your life back on track and live a happy and productive life.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

EMPLOYERS CAN BE FORCED INTO BANKRUPTCY BY CRIMINAL PENALTIES

www.irasmithinc.com, consumer proposal, toronto bankruptcy, bankruptcy, bankruptcy trustee, bankruptcy (4)Ground Breaking News for Employers: On September 4, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that, in appropriate cases, courts can essentially fine a company into bankruptcy for a Criminal Code conviction. The Court of Appeal released its decision in the sentence appeal in R. v. Metron Construction Corporation (“Metron”) as a result of tragic circumstances.

What circumstances brought about this ground breaking decision? In September 2009 there was a tragic worksite accident that left 4 workers dead and one who survived with serious injuries. Metron was restoring concrete balconies on 2 high-rise buildings in Toronto. They had arranged for a number of swing stages for the project; however 2 of the swing stages from an Ottawa-based supplier did not have any markings, serial numbers, identifiers or labels describing maximum capacity, as required by law and industry practice. They were delivered without manuals, instructions or design drawings and, contrary to legal requirements, were not accompanied by a written report from a professional engineer stating that the swing stage had been erected in accordance with design drawings. There were 2 lifelines for the swing stage to which workers could connect their fall harness. The normal practice was that only 2 workers would be on the swing stage at any one time. On December 24, 2009, 6 workers were on a swing stage at a height of approximately 13 storeys. The swing stage collapsed and 4 workers were killed, 1 survived with serious injuries and 1 who was actually connected to a fall arrest system was not injured.

After an investigation by the Ministry of Labour and the police it was determined that three of the four deceased, including the site supervisor, had recently consumed marijuana. It was also determined that the swing stage collapsed because its design was defective and it was unable to tolerate the combined weight of six men and their equipment. Many charges were laid by The Ministry of Labour against multiple parties under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”). After its own investigation, the Toronto Police Service also laid numerous criminal charges.

Employers Beware!

  • It appears possible that the criminally negligent behaviour of a single, low-level official could lead to a sentence that sends a company into bankruptcy, notwithstanding the absence of systemic conduct or the involvement of highly placed officials.
  • There is no due diligence defence to a criminal negligence charge and the corporate level at which the criminally negligent behaviour occurred is irrelevant and cannot diminish corporate culpability.
  • A corporation cannot diminish its culpability based on the hierarchical position of the criminally negligent individual(s) within the organization.
  • Criminal negligence is a different and more serious offence than a breach of health and safety legislation and is expected to result in more severe sentences.

If your small company, entrepreneurial corporation, or a multi-faceted complex organization has found itself in financial difficulty for any reason, Contact Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. immediately. Our practitioners are available seven days a week do deal with your urgent needs. Starting Over, Starting Now we’ll put an immediate plan in place and start the process for dealing with the longer-term situation.

Call a Trustee Now!