Tag: legal counsel

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

ONTARIO FAMILY LAW: DETAILED ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ALLOWS WIFE’S CLAIM OVER HUSBAND’S CREDITOR

family law
family law

Family law introduction

An important decision was rendered by the Court of Appeal for Ontario on April 26, 2023. It is in a recent case concerning the sale of a matrimonial home through family law proceedings. In this case, the court considered the division of net family property between Subhathini Senthillmohan (wife) and her separated husband Sockalingam Senthillmohan (husband) the claims of the wife and a creditor of the husband.

This ruling carries significant weight for couples, irrespective of whether they are happily married or going through a divorce. The ramifications of this verdict extend to couples who jointly own a property as tenants in common, regardless of their marital status or if family law matters are in play.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I explore the recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling on a wife’s claim over her husband’s creditor in the sale of the matrimonial home. I discuss the implications of the ruling for couples going through a divorce and how it can protect a spouse’s interest in the home.

As you will see below, even If you’re not going through family law issues in Ontario, this Brandon’s Blog shows how the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruling provides important information on your rights and obligations under the law.

This Brandon’s Blog is not a substitute for legal counsel experienced in family law, as we are not lawyers. However, if you are in a similar situation as the joint tenants described below, or even if you are not involved in family court proceedings or a contentious family law matter, it is possible that you may encounter similar legal issues concerning joint ownership of property where your joint property owner is an insolvent debtor. It is essential to communicate your situation to your legal representative and obtain sound advice and legal representation to ensure you are fully aware of your legal rights.

Family law: Background of the case

The case is Senthillmohan v. Senthillmohan, 2023 ONCA 280. The parties were married still but separated, and in January 2020, the wife brought an application seeking an unequal division of the net family property. Alternatively, she sought an equalization of net family property and the sale of their matrimonial home. Even though they were going through family law proceedings for divorce, the wife remained living in the home, which was jointly owned by both of them as joint tenants.

The default judgment held by the third-party creditor, 2401242 Ontario Inc., was the result of a civil suit. However, they later agreed to lift the order to aid in the smooth sale of the matrimonial home. Meanwhile, the wife sought an urgent family law court order to dissolve their joint ownership of the property, and a ruling that they now held title to the matrimonial home as tenants in common.

The creditor’s default judgment came from a civil lawsuit. The creditor filed a writ of seizure and sale in September 2021. The husband and wife entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to sell the home in October 2021, and the home ultimately sold for $1.9M. The creditor agreed to lift the judgment to facilitate the sale of the matrimonial home.

The net sale proceeds, after the discharge of secured encumbrances, were approximately $925,000. In the interim, the wife took immediate legal action by seeking a court order to terminate the couple’s joint ownership of the property and to establish their title to the matrimonial home as tenants in common. The order was obtained with the consent of the husband. The order was silent on the effective date of the severance and does not address the claim of the third-party creditor or its default judgment against the husband.

family law
family law

Family law: The lower court decision

The lower court made an order for the sale of the matrimonial home, with the funds being held in trust until a mutual agreement is entered into or a court order is made regarding equalization. In making its order, the lower court changed the ownership from joint tenants to tenants in common.

She claimed that her very interest in the matrimonial home took precedence over that of the creditor. After considering every one of the arguments provided by both sides, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice inevitably ruled in favour of the wife. The court stated that the wife’s ownership interest was in priority to that of the creditor.

In February 2022, the wife filed a motion seeking the release of her 50% share of the net sale proceeds. The judgment creditor contended that the husband and wife were joint tenants at the time of the default judgment and writ filing, hence it had priority over the wife’s interest in the sale proceeds.

Nevertheless, the motion judge dismissed this argument and determined that the joint tenancy had been severed by the time the third-party creditor acquired the default judgment against the husband.

The third-party creditor was dissatisfied with the ruling and proceeded to appeal the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal with the intention of having it reversed.

Family law: The OCA ruling

The creditor lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, asserting that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge had erred in ruling that the joint tenancy of the marital home had been retroactively divided and that the wife possessed entitlement over the creditor’s writ. Additionally, the creditor contended that the judge had neglected to take into account the writ affixed to the total net proceeds of a voluntary sale of the jointly-owned property.

The creditor contended that joint tenants are, for all intents and purposes, a single owner until the joint tenancy is dissolved, thereby affording a creditor the entitlement to make a claim against the entire interest. However, the Court of Appeal for Ontario duly rejected the creditor’s appeal, concluding that a creditor is unable to lay hold of the interest of a joint tenant who is not indebted.

The court went on to say that the creditor was fundamentally mistaken with respect to the law governing creditors’ remedies vis-à-vis jointly-held assets, where only one of the owners had liability for the debt.

The court explained the process of seizure and sale in Ontario. They stated that the execution registered on title can only be against the debtor’s exigible interest in the land held in joint tenancy. Additionally, the court held that in the case of joint property ownership, in the event of one joint tenant’s death, the remaining tenant inherits the entire interest in the property due to their right of survivorship.

The court’s ruling is a beacon of hope for partners or couples who hold property together jointly. It reinforces the idea that no creditor can take away the rights of a non-debtor joint tenant who acquires a property through the right of survivorship.

The Court of Appeal in Ontario nodded in agreement with the motion judge’s decision and ultimately dismissed the appeal. In their ruling, the court explicitly stated that the motion judge applied the proper legal principles of joint tenancy, including its severance and the priority of interests.

Despite the order being silent on the effective date of severance, the court ultimately found that the motion judge was correct in his decision to sever the joint tenancy in the matrimonial home. Interestingly, the creditor did not seek clarification of the order, leaving room for speculation as to why. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice judge had taken into consideration the unique facts and circumstances surrounding the case and determined that there was indeed enough evidence to support the severance of the joint tenancy.

The court firmly rejected the argument put forward by the third-party creditor, which claimed that the motion judge did not have the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case. Furthermore, the court determined that the motion judge had effectively and properly exercised his discretion in denying the creditor’s request for an adjournment.

The lawyer representing the wife made cost submissions and achieved a favourable outcome in securing costs. The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the wife’s entitlement to compensation and granted an award of $20,000, which includes HST and other expenses incurred during the legal proceedings.

family law
family law

Family law: Implications of the ruling

The court’s ruling has far-reaching consequences, not only for couples undergoing divorce proceedings in Ontario but also for any joint owners of the property where one of them has outstanding debts or judgments while the other does not. Essentially, the non-debtor partner’s right to the property takes precedence over any claims by creditors in most situations. This decision offers much-needed protection for joint owners who may be at risk of losing their property due to their partner’s debts.

It’s worth noting that this ruling applies exclusively to the sale of the matrimonial home and has no impact on a creditor’s ability to seize other assets or property owned solely by the debtor who owes the money. It’s important to bear in mind that this ruling does not affect the rights of mortgagees in any way. As stated previously, the mortgages were paid off, and the legal dispute concerned only the net sale proceeds.

This court ruling is applicable not only to married couples going through divorce proceedings but also to joint owners of real property where one of the owners has unpaid personal income tax or owes money for director liability, such as unpaid corporate HST or unremitted employee source deductions, to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). If the debtor does not make satisfactory arrangements with the CRA for repayment, the tax authority can obtain a judgment against that person from a federal court without serving notice to them.

Following that, the CRA can register the judgment against the joint owner’s interest in the real estate, a process known as registering a Memorial. This registration can affect only the joint owner who owes the debt and not the other joint owner who is not indebted to the CRA. It is not related to family law and is applicable even if there are no divorce proceedings underway.

This court ruling not only benefits family law proceedings but also reinforces our position in insolvency proceedings that the non-bankrupt, non-insolvent joint owner’s stake in the property is not impacted by the other joint owner’s insolvency or bankruptcy case. In the event of personal bankruptcy, the licensed insolvency trustee who is overseeing the bankruptcy would take control of the bankrupt joint owner’s interest in the property. While there may only be one buyer for that interest, the other joint owner would be the logical purchaser. However, these are economic concerns rather than legal issues.

Family law conclusion

I hope you enjoyed this family law Brandon’s Blog. Managing your personal or business financial affairs in today’s ever-challenging and changing business landscape is no small feat, but with the right plan in place, it’s possible to stay or get back on track.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing people, entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. Are you now worried about just how you or your business are going to survive? Are you worried about what your fiduciary obligations are and not sure if the decisions you are about to make are the correct ones to avoid personal liability? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. Coming out of the pandemic, we are also now worried about the economic effects of inflation and a potential recession.

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 proceedings. We can get you debt relief now.

We have helped many entrepreneurs and their insolvent companies who thought that consulting with a trustee and receiver meant their company would go bankrupt. On the contrary. We helped turn their companies around through financial restructuring.

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.

The Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team understands 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.

family law
family law
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BIA: 2 PEOPLE’S CHALLENGE SUING A CANADIAN LICENSED INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE

bia

<h2>

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA): Introduction

On April 13, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) dismissed the application by the legal counsel of a former bankrupt and his wife for leave to appeal the costs awarded against them in a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. As is the usual case, the SCC did not give any reasons for the dismissal. The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision dealt with what is required under section 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) to sue a licensed insolvency trustee.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I provide a comprehensive guide to the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision and everything you need to know about section 215 of the BIA. Using this real court decision as an example, we’ll explore the ins and outs of Section 215 of the BIA to give you a clear understanding of its purpose, how it applies, and the potential consequences of non-compliance.

Overview of BIA Section 215

Section 215 of the BIA requires that permission of the court be obtained to bring an action against the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada, an official receiver, an interim receiver or a licensed insolvency trustee with respect to any report made under, or any action taken, under the BIA.

The purpose of this section is to ensure that the court must first decide if a proposed action has on its surface a legitimate purpose relating to the administration of insolvency matters in Canada and to avoid frivolous actions that have no chance of success.

Regular readers of Brandon’s Blog know that I have been following and writing about the case of the former bankrupt, Mr. Wayne Flight and his wife, Amber Nicole Flight. In my November 2021 blog titled: TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY: CERTAIN ACTIONS AGAINST TRUSTEE CAN BE UNLEASHED WITHOUT FIRST REQUIRING COURT PERMISSION, I detailed a decision of the Ontario court where the motion judge decided that notwithstanding section 215 of the BIA, the Flights did not need to first obtain authorization from the Court in order to initiate their legal proceeding.

Then in July 2022, I wrote that the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) had appealed this lower court decision and gave an overview of the appeal and other related issues in my blog titled: INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE: TURNS OUT CERTAIN ACTIONS AGAINST THE TRUSTEE CANNOT BE UNLEASHED WITHOUT COURT PERMISSION.

As stated above, this Brandon’s Blog will provide a comprehensive guide to the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision and everything you need to know about section 215 of the BIA.bia

BIA: The Motion Judge’s Decision

The motion judge decided that the Flights did not require the permission of the court, under s. 215 of the BIA, to bring an action against the Trustee, relating to the administration of four bankruptcies of Brian Wayne Flight! The same corporate trustee was the Trustee in each of his bankruptcy proceedings. The lower court judge rendered a decision that negates the applicability of the clause in dispute, deeming the action to be levied against the individual Trustee in a personal capacity, and further alleging omissions as a mitigating factor. She did not assess whether section 215 of the BIA did apply and if it did, should permission to proceed with the action be granted.

Upon due consideration of the arguments presented, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has granted the Trustee in Bankruptcy leave to appeal and has subsequently set aside the order of the motion judge. In rendering its decision, the appellate court has determined that pursuant to section 215 of the BIA, permission to bring the civil action must be obtained and has thus directed the matter back to the bankruptcy court to assess whether such permission should be granted.

It is noteworthy that, despite the Flights’ appeal of this ruling to the SCC, said appeal has been dismissed. Consequently, the matter will now be remanded to the bankruptcy court for further deliberations.

The BIA case background

Mr. Flight filed for bankruptcy on four separate occasions – specifically in the years 2004, 2006, 2011, and 2016. The same corporate trustee was the Trustee in respect of each of these bankruptcies. The same individual licensed insolvency trustee was the individual at the corporate trustee with carriage of Mr. Flight’s bankruptcies.

The total of the proven claims in the first three bankruptcies was $324,800. The total amount distributed to creditors of those bankruptcies was about $3,200. Proven claims in the fourth bankruptcy were $127,870.

In the year 2018, amidst his fourth bankruptcy, Mr. Flight uncovered the fact that substantial amounts had been unlawfully appropriated from his business operations between 2003 and 2018. The perpetrator of this offence was none other than Julie LeBlanc, his former spouse, his bookkeeper, and authorized agent. Ultimately, Mr. Flight determined that the amount of the misappropriations was approximately $206,000.

Mr. Flight successfully retrieved a sum of approximately $30,300 from Ms. LeBlanc, however, it was not submitted to the Trustee. Subsequently, in April 2018, Mr. Flight lodged a complaint with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy regarding the Trustee’s inability to identify Ms. LeBlanc’s actions. Following the formal complaint, the Trustee was made aware of Ms. LeBlanc’s illicit activities and the funds secured by Mr. Flight.

Disputes then arose between the Trustee and Mr.Flight concerning whether and on what terms he would be discharged from bankruptcy and how the payments from Ms. LeBlanc should be treated. In August 2019, Mr. Flight was granted a conditional discharge on terms that, if complied with, allowed him to receive an absolute discharge after twelve months. The Trustee and Mr. Flight did not agree as to whether those conditions were met.

In September 2019, Mr. Flight and his current spouse, Amber Nicole Flight, commenced an action against the individual licensed trustee, seeking relief (the “Action”). The Action does not name, or refer to, the corporate trustee, but it treats the individual trustee as though he were the Trustee. The central allegation in the Action is that the individual trustee, as the“Licensed Insolvency Trustee” for each of the bankruptcies, ought to have detected Ms. LeBlanc’s misappropriations and, once told about them, ought to have taken steps including suing Ms. LeBlanc.

As Mr. Flight states in his affidavit:

“At the heart of this action is the Trustee’s failure to detect, prevent, and once he became aware of it, to litigate, the theft and fraud committed by my former Accountant, Bookkeeper, and Power of Attorney, JulieLeBlanc”.bia

Did the undischarged bankrupt have the right to launch the Action under the BIA?

Both the individual trustee and the corporate trustee objected to the Action on the basis that at the time of its commencement, (i) Mr. Flight was an undischarged bankrupt person, and (ii) no permission was obtained under s. 215 of the BIA to bring the Action.

Mr. Flight brought a motion, in his bankruptcy proceeding, seeking directions with respect to whether he had the right to commence the Action as an undischarged bankrupt and, if required, seeking leave to do so under section 215 of the BIA.

In September 2020, and before the motion for directions was heard, Mr. Flight launched but did not proceed with, a motion for an absolute discharge. In October 2020, working with a different insolvency professional, he filed a consumer proposal under the BIA. It was accepted by Mr. Flight’s sole significant creditor in February 2021. The acceptance of the consumer proposal resulted in his bankruptcy being deemed annulled.

Following acceptance of the consumer proposal the motion judge heard the motion for directions with respect to the Action.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s analysis

The motion judge, sitting in the bankruptcy court, determined that permission was not required under section 215 of the BIA to commence the Action. She expressly did not determine whether, if permission were required, should it be granted. She did not address whether Mr. Flight’s status as an undischarged bankrupt at the time the Action was started prevented him from bringing it.

The motion judge described the Action as one seeking “a declaration that the defendant engaged in misfeasance, negligence, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in his personal capacity and that the defendant was unjustly enriched.” She described the claims in the Action as alleging a theft (by Ms. LeBlanc) that caused Mr. Flight’s repeated bankruptcies, and as alleging that the individual trustee was liable since the“defendant trustee ought to have detected this fraud in the administration of the four bankruptcies”.

The motion judge described the Action as claiming damages flowing from the individual trustee’s alleged failure to: “take any meaningful action to address the alleged fraud and its impact on the fourth bankruptcy after its discovery”; “diligently commence an action against the former bookkeeper”; “investigate the fraud”; “adjust the plaintiff’s surplus income”; “recommend a consumer proposal in alternative to bankruptcy”; and “have the plaintiff promptly discharged from his fourth bankruptcy”.

The motion judge gave two reasons for finding that the Action did not require permission under section 215 of the BIA. According to her perspective, seeking recourse against trustees in their individual capacity does not necessitate prior authorization. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the pursuit of legal recourse pertaining to omissions does not necessitate getting prior authorization.bia

The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the motion judge erred in concluding that the capacity in which the Trustee was sued made section 215 of the BIA inapplicable. An action does not fall outside of section 215 of the BIA because it names an individual rather than the corporate trustee as the defendant, where the action alleges that the individual owed the duties of a Trustee and is liable as if he were the Trustee. Nor does an action fall outside of section 215 of the BIA because the claim asserts that it is brought against the Trustee in a personal capacity, where the gist of the claim is wrongdoing in the performance of the Trustee’s role.

The appellate court stated that the motion judge also erred in holding that an action that makes any allegation of an omission falls outside of section 215 of the BIA. Although section 215 does not apply to an action premised on the failure of a Trustee to do an act specifically and expressly mandated by the BIA, that is not the core allegation in the Flight’s claim. Section 215 applies to the Action, which alleges common law wrongdoing in the performance of the Trustee’s role, even if an aspect of that wrongdoing is described as an omission to act.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the Trustee’s leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and returned the matter to the bankruptcy court to determine whether the Flights should be granted permission to sue the individual trustee. The individual and corporate trustees were entitled to the costs of the appeal, fixed in the amount of $13,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes. Now that the SCC appeal is dismissed, the lower court will have to decide the real issues as determined by the Court of Appeal for Ontario

BIA: Conclusion

I hope you enjoyed this section 215 BIA Brandon’s Blog.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing people, entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. Are you now worried about just how you or your business are going to survive? Are you worried about what your fiduciary obligations are and not sure if the decisions you are about to make are the correct ones to avoid personal liability? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. Coming out of the pandemic, we are also now worried about the economic effects of inflation and a potential recession.

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 proceedings. We can get you debt relief now.

We have helped many entrepreneurs and their insolvent companies who thought that consulting with a trustee and receiver meant their company would go bankrupt. On the contrary. We helped turn their companies around through financial restructuring.

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.

The Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team understands 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.bia

 

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CUSHMAN WAKEFIELD TORONTO: COURT READILY APPOINTS FIRM TO REVIEW LAURENTIAN’S MASSIVE REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Sudbury, Ont., school looks for court approval to move on to Phase 2 of restructuring plan

 

On June 29, 2021, the Laurentian University CCAA Court-appointed Monitor issued its Fifth Report to Court in the Laurentian University insolvency restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA). On July 5, 2021, it filed its Supplementary Fifth Report with the Ontario Court.

The report was issued in support of Laurentian’s application to the court for approval to retain a Toronto office of Cushman & Wakefield (Cushman Wakefield Toronto) as Real Estate Advisor to Laurentian. The Supplementary Fifth Report was filed at the direction of the Ontario Court (further described below).

I have previously written about Laurentian University’s court-supervised restructuring in 5 previous Brandon Blogs:

The first phase of the Laurentian insolvency process had many parts to it. First was to declare its poor financial situation and file for bankruptcy protection under the CCAA and perform a review of its various contracts, leases, supplier arrangements, the federated university model, its academic offerings and its faculty and non-teaching staffing. As part of this first phase, Laurentian also needed to determine where cuts needed to be made.

Laurentian then implemented the reductions for cost savings including reaching new arrangements with the unions representing its employees to set out the terms of new collective bargaining agreements and to disclaim various agreements, including the federated university agreement with Huntington University, Thorneloe University and the University of Sudbury.

My February 8 and May 5 Brandon Blogs describe these steps in detail.

Next in this phase 1 was getting approval from the Ontario Court to retain a consultant to, amongst other things, perform a governance review and for the Monitor to get approval for the claims process the Monitor approves of. At this stage of the process, Laurentian pulled together a list of creditors; secured creditors and unsecured creditors.

This was all described in my June 14 Brandon Blog, including the changes to the claims process resulting from the hearing in the Ontario Court. The Monitor advised the court that the Monitor approves of the amendment and therefore the amended claims process received court approval.

In this Brandon Blog, I describe the second phase of this insolvency process and the Laurentian restructuring plan now being undertaken. It is the real estate review.

cushman wakefield toronto
cushman wakefield toronto

Cushman Wakefield Toronto: Laurentian University plans real estate review to see what could help pay off debt

On July 5, 2021, the Court listened to Laurentian University’s application for an order approving Laurentian to retain Cushman Wakefield Toronto as a realty advisor to do an evaluation of Laurentian’s real estate portfolio, and also its request for a sealing order with respect to the monetary details of the Cushman Wakefield Toronto retainer.

The Monitor advised the court that a significant amount of Laurentian University’s assets is represented by its real estate holdings. This includes the land and buildings on which the primary campus rests in addition to off-campus realty. The Monitor also advised that Laurentian has noted that with the academic and labour force changes lately executed within the CCAA proceedings, there may be opportunities to customize its use of space within different structures. This leads to possibilities to monetize specific real estate assets. Therefore, Laurentian determined, that it was appropriate to involve a real estate consultant to take on a study of its real estate portfolio in order to advise Laurentian on the best way to monetize its available real estate.

The Monitor described its RFP process that had a deadline of May 28 for the submission of proposals from qualified real estate professionals. After the Monitor, Laurentian and its respective legal counsel received certain requests for additional time in order to submit a proposal, the Monitor extended the deadline for submissions to June 1, 2021. The Monitor advised the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Commercial List that it received 6 proposals and held meetings with 4 of the parties who submitted a proposal in order to interview each of them.

The Monitor recommended to the court that the proposed contract between Laurentian and Cushman Wakefield Toronto (including the third parties Cushman Wakefiled Toronto advised would be part of its team) be approved. The Monitor also advised the Court that Laurentian would be seeking a sealing order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Commerical List concerning the financial terms of the Cushman Wakefield Toronto retainer. Accordingly, a copy of the Cushman Wakefield Toronto proposal excluding any financial terms.

What the court said about the Sudbury school plans a real estate review in Phase 2 of its court-guided restructuring process

Chief Justice Morawetz took issue with the part of the motion that requested the financial terms of the Cushman Wakefield Toronto proposal to continue to be confidential under a sealing order. He directed that the total amount of the retainer be disclosed. Proprietary information such as how Cushman Wakefield Toronto calculated its total fee could remain private.

After evaluating the Confidential Appendix, Chief Justice Morawetz shared his view that specific aspects of the appendix did not contain commercially sensitive or proprietary details. Upon obtaining further instructions, Laurentian legal counsel advised the court that certain portions of the appendix could develop part of the general public record. Therefore the information covered by the sealing order was tightened up.

The sole purpose of the Monitor’s Supplementary 5th Report to Court dated July 5, 2021, was to abide by the Court’s decision that a redacted copy of the financial terms of the Cushman Wakefield Toronto retainer must be filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Commercial List so that it will become a public document.

cushman wakefield toronto
cushman wakefield toronto

Laurentian University owns some of the last undeveloped waterfront on Sudbury’s Lake Nepahwin

So phase 2 of the Laurentian University creditor protection CCAA process is now underway. Laurentian has real estate both on and off-campus that will be reviewed for monetization by Cushman Wakefield Toronto. The monetization will provide the necessary funds to offer to both secured creditors and unsecured creditors in the ultimate financial restructuring plan called a Plan of Arrangement.

Laurentian has some of the last undeveloped waterfront on Lake Nepahwin. Much of that land is bushland, including some prime beachfront property on Lake Nepahwin, where the university has its own beach.

Here is a fun fact about some Laurentian real estate. In recent years, the only public discussion concerning Laurentian’s lands has actually centred on a couple who purchased a residence in the area, just to find out half their backyard, including their septic tank, was encroaching on university property!

The Sudbury couple stated they made offers to Laurentian to purchase the land from them. The latest offer was for them to pay Laurentian $70,000 plus give the university a bigger land parcel in return for the Laurentian land to eliminate the encroachment. Laurentian refused and started a lawsuit against them.

Perhaps as part of the overall financial restructuring, Laurentian can see fit not to continue this war against the Sudbury couple and accept their offer. You would think the Board of Governors has much bigger issues to be concerned about, such as the entire CCAA restructuring including the monetization of the real estate portfolio.

Cushman Wakefield Toronto summary

I hope that you found this Cushman Wakefield Toronto Brandon Blog interesting. Problems will arise when you are cash-starved and in debt. You may have assets that you can monetize to rectify your financial situation. Many do not though.

If you are concerned because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges, whether you need gambling debt help or just plain old debt help and you assume bankruptcy is your only option, call me.

It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

The Ira Smith Team utilizes new modern-day ways to get you out of your debt difficulties with debt relief options as alternatives to bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve. Our professional advice will create for you a personalized debt-free plan for you or your company during our no-cost initial consultation.

The tension put upon you is big. We know your discomfort factors. We will check out your entire situation and design a new approach that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. We will take the weight off of your shoulders and blow away the dark cloud hanging over you. We will design a debt settlement strategy for you. We know that we can help you now.

We understand that people and businesses facing financial issues need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” method with the Ira Smith Team. Not everyone has to file bankruptcy in Canada. The majority of our clients never do as we know the alternatives to bankruptcy. We help many people and companies stay clear of filing an assignment in bankruptcy.

That is why we can establish a new restructuring procedure for paying down debt that will be built just for you. It will be as one-of-a-kind as the economic issues and discomfort you are encountering. If any one of these seems familiar to you and you are serious about getting the solution you need to become debt-free, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost bankruptcy consultation.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

cushman wakefield toronto
cushman wakefield toronto
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?

If trustee of parents estateIf you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Trustee of parents estate

Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom for the podcast.

Trustee of parents estate: Introduction

I want to talk about an issue which is all too common. I am also going to give you two real-life examples. The issue is that of children being named as the estate trustee of parents estate.

I caution that I and my firm are not lawyers, and I am by no means providing in this and upcoming Brandon’s Blogs advice on wills or estate planning matters. For that, you must consult your lawyer.

Why the children?

Many times in drafting a will, parents want their children to know that the parents trust and love them. So, they not only have their children as beneficiaries of their estate, they also make them the estate trustees (formerly known as executor or executrix). This is natural, but may not be the best choice.

The reason I say this is because the role of the estate trustee is a demanding one that requires a specific skill set. Children don’t always have the necessary skills. What if one or more of the children have great financial skills and have sound judgment, but others don’t. This can lead to differences of opinion and major arguments. In the most extreme case, it can lead to costly and lengthy litigation to dissipate estate assets. Executors must act in the best interests of all beneficiaries. If personal agendas get in the way, then everyone’s best interests can’t be met.

Adult children are probably married. Now you have daughters-in-law and sons-in-law involved in the background. This can lead to a whole host of issues that has nothing to do with the efficient administration of the parents’ estate and being even-handed with all beneficiaries.

What if some of the children have personal financial issues. There will be a temptation for self-dealing or self-enrichment. Again this can lead to major problems.

What if you have an even number of children? Two or four estate trustees can lead to many problems. With two, the estate trustees will always be deadlocked if they don’t see eye to eye. With four, not only can you have a deadlock, but too many cooks may spoil the broth!

Splitting the tasks

Sometimes parents split the tasks. One child will be the estate trustee because she has great financial acumen. The other child will be made responsible for health and living decisions if the parents first become incapacitated. Sounds great in theory. However, the way the health decider child wishes the parents to live may be at odds with the financial person seeing the estate shrinking away. Or, the health decider may make decisions for the parents to live in a way that does not shrink away from the estate, but is demeaning to the parents and does not give them a good quality of life in their final days.

So, as you can see, what started out as the parents wanting to “do right” by their children, can lead to many problems.

What an estate trustee should not do

In my last blog, TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I spoke about some basic elements of the role of an estate trustee. I described the process of becoming an estate trustee, and what the responsibilities are.

Now, I want to touch on some practical matters of what an estate trustee should not do.

The first is communicating with some beneficiaries and not others. As I have previously described, one of the roles and responsibilities of an estate trustee is to deal with all beneficiaries even-handedly. The estate trustee cannot tell certain details to some beneficiaries, and not others. So, all communications should be with all beneficiaries at the same time; either in writing or orally. Everyone should get the same information at the same time. The estate trustee does not wish to be accused of favouring some beneficiaries over others.

The second thing not to do is to rush to distribute smaller personal possessions of the deceased. The estate trustee may be pressured by family members to distribute certain items quickly. Possibly because the family member is the proper beneficiary of those small items and wants them as quickly as possible. Alternatively, perhaps they are not the rightful beneficiary of all the items they are claiming. However, they want to get their hands on certain items to stop other family members from getting them. Or perhaps there is a home involved that must be sold, so family members will pressure the estate trustee to clean out the home immediately so that the home can be put up for sale as soon as possible.

As tempting and easy as it might be, the estate trustee must first take steps to:

  • get a copy of the will and the deceased’s financial records
  • take possession and control of all assets
  • ensure that a proper inventory is made and that appraisals are obtained where necessary
  • make sure that all required insurance and bonding is in place

There is another reason. An estate trustee will be putting more pressure on themselves than they should bY making piecemeal distributions. Regardless of value, making a quick distribution to one of the beneficiaries will only give rise to all the other beneficiaries clamouring for their entitlements. The estate trustee may not be in a position for some time to be able to make a proper distribution to all other beneficiaries. This will only lead to headaches for the estate trustee.

Why some children may not want to be an estate trustee

There can be danger in being an estate trustee. In my last blog, I highlighted specific expertise and knowledge that an estate trustee must have. I also discussed how a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) also possesses the same skill set required of an estate trustee.

A trustee, including an estate trustee, acts in a fiduciary capacity. The estate trustee is fully accountable for all decisions made and steps were taken with respect to the assets. Not only is it important to have the necessary financial skills, but an estate trustee also has to be aware of the myriad of income tax issues. Final income tax returns must be filed. The estate trustee has a duty to ensure that all income tax legislation requirements are met, including the obtaining of clearance certificates. Any loss to the estate as a result of things an estate trustee either did or did not do, the estate trustee will be personally liable for.

The steps required in formulating an appropriate sales process for the different asset types not being directly distributed to beneficiaries is not totally scientific. There is some art to it as well. Making wrong decisions can expose the estate to loss of value, which will blow back right onto the estate trustee.

For these reasons, children may not wish to take on responsibility. The smart ones will understand that they do not have the required skill set. In other cases, the children may see the real possibility of creating family strife if they were to take on the role of an estate trustee. So what if children are named in the will as the estate trustees, but they don’t wish to take on the role. Must they anyway?

Renunciation of estate trustee Ontario

If you have not yet applied for probate or have otherwise not started to administer the estate, you do not have to be an estate trustee. There is a specific form to complete in order to renunciate your position as an estate trustee. Again, it must be done before you take any action as the estate trustee. If you have already applied for probate, or have started administering the estate and now find that you are in over your head, you cannot renunciate your position. You must make application to Court for an Order removing you as the estate trustee. I would suggest that if you are the sole estate trustee, you should have someone else lined up to succeed you. Otherwise, the Court may not allow you to be removed.

Two real-life examples

Example 1

In my blog, COURT APPOINTED ESTATE TRUSTEE CASE STUDY: IF IT WAS EASY YOU WOULDN’T NEED US, I described one of our case studies where we were appointed estate trustee to sell real estate. In that case, neither of the beneficiaries were capable of agreeing on anything. They were also incapable of carrying out the role of taking possession and control of the real property, Insuring it and selling it. Legal counsel for one of the beneficiaries made an application to Court seeking an Order appointing Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. as an estate trustee.

The Court made the Order. With the approval of the Court, we listed the property for sale, obtained approval to our actions and activities, including a sale of the property. We then proposed a distribution of funds which also was approved by the Court. We made the distribution and obtained our discharge. This is a perfect example of how our skill set as a licensed insolvency trustee was recognized by the Court and allowed us to carry out the mandate in an efficient way.

Example 2

Recently, one of Ira Smith’s cousins needed to update her will and name an estate trustee. This cousin has three children. None of the children believed that they had the necessary skills and knowledge to be an estate trustee. They also agreed that it was not a good idea for any of them to take on that role.

However, there was one thing that the mother and her three children could all agree on. That was that Ira had the necessary skills to be the estate trustee. They unanimously agreed that it would be a good idea for Ira to take on that role. Ira’s cousin asked him if he would. He told his cousin that he was honoured that they all thought so highly of him. He agreed to be named in her will as the estate trustee.

The children were smart. They knew what they didn’t know. They all agreed on the estate trustee being proposed. A huge weight was taken off of the mother’s shoulders.

Trustee of parents estate: Why not appoint a Toronto bankruptcy trustee?

I hope that you can see that the knowledge, experience, and expertise of a licensed insolvency trustee would stand him or her in good stead to act as executor, executrix or estate trustee of a deceased estate. Many times, it may be a smart move to allow an independent neutral third party act as the estate trustee. Especially one like a licensed insolvency trustee who is used to acting as the independent Court officer.

If you have any questions about a deceased estate and the need for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CANADIAN BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE: CRITICAL ILLNESS INSURANCE IN A BANKRUPTCY

Canadian bankruptcy discharge: Introduction

Many times during the administration of a Canadian bankruptcy, the licensed insolvency Trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee) comes across a novel issue. The decision of A.R. Robertson, a Registrar in Bankruptcy in Calgary, Alberta in the bankruptcy discharge application of Shirley Rose Cooke has such an issue within it.

The case is Cooke (Re), 2018 ABQB 628 (CanLII). The issue that came before the Court was, what happens to a critical illness benefit payment for the undischarged bankrupt? Does it go to the Trustee or is the undischarged bankrupt debtor able to keep it? This topic should be of interest to accountants, lawyers, insurance agents and financial planners, in addition to Trustees.

Canadian bankruptcy discharge: The issue

Registrar Robertson described this case as an “interesting application” for bankruptcy discharge. The matter was heard on July 9, 2018. Ms. Cooke is 62 years old. She filed for bankruptcy on April 12, 2016. The issue to be decided is whether a critical illness benefit payment she obtained in the amount of $25,000, forms part of her assets which fall to the Trustee. The Trustee’s position was that it is an asset of the bankruptcy Estate and Ms. Cooke’s creditors are entitled to it.

Canadian bankruptcy discharge: The facts

In March 2016, Ms. Cooke was diagnosed with breast cancer. She went through surgery and had radiation treatments until July 2016. Prior to her medical diagnosis, she worked full time as a healthcare worker. She stopped working in March 2016 as a result of her diagnosis and need to undergo surgery and radiation. She returned to part-time work at her former employer, in about August 2016.


Her evidence was that at the time that she left her full-time work, her employer informed her she had the critical illness benefit policy and that she should apply under it. Apparently, she was unaware of this policy as being part of her benefits package. She applied for the benefit payment.

When she made her assignment in bankruptcy, she did not divulge the critical illness benefit application to the Trustee. She advised the Court that she did not have any type of certainty that she would receive the benefit. Eventually, she did, in January 2017. When she did, she advised her Trustee.

Canadian bankruptcy discharge: The Trustee’s position


The Trustee took the view that the critical illness benefit payment was a component of the insolvent person’s income under s. 67 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA). S. 67 of the BIA deals with property of the bankrupt, while s. 68 of the BIA deals with surplus income. However, s. 67 of the BIA does cover certain exclusions of types of payments a bankrupt may receive. The kinds of payments carved out are normally government type payments that have an overarching social aim, such as GST/HST tax credit payments.

It was very clear from the evidence that had she known she was going to get a $25,000 insurance payment from the insurance company, she would likely not have entered bankruptcy. Had she divulged the benefit application to the Trustee, the Trustee may very well have recommended she not go bankrupt.

The Trustee desires that Ms. Cooke pay the amount of $20,000 as a condition of her discharge. The Trustee states that in dealing with this critical illness benefit issue, including research, its fee now approximates that amount. I find it interesting that the Trustee is requesting the majority of her critical illness benefit payment as a discharge condition.

If the Trustee truly believes that the benefit payment should be considered as income under s. 67 of the BIA, then the correct treatment would be for the Trustee to redo its surplus income calculation under s. 68 of the BIA for Ms. Cooke. Then see what her surplus income obligation would be. If the Trustee is really trying to say the benefit payment is an asset that should come to the Trustee, then they should be asking for the entire $25,000. From my reading of the Registrar’s decision, it appears that the Trustee did neither but merely is asking for an amount to cover its costs!

Canadian bankruptcy discharge: The Registrar’s analysis


The Registrar indicated that in order to determine what is the appropriate condition if anything, he would have to assess the fees charged by the Trustee. If the Registrar really meant that he would have to tax the Trustee’s fee and costs, that makes sense. Otherwise, I am not sure what the connection is between the Trustee’s fee and costs, and whether a conditional discharge should be granted.

Ms. Cooke’s legal counsel referred to the Registrar the facts under s.173 of the BIA that could lead to an absolute discharge from bankruptcy not being granted. Her legal counsel indicated that none of the factors that would allow for a conditional, suspended or refused discharge apply in this matter.

The Registrar encouraged both parties to provide him with whatever additional information or authorities they thought appropriate by Tuesday, August 7, 2018.

The Trustee provided the Court with additional material. One such item was a copy of a letter sent by the Trustee to Ms. Cooke advising that, in the Trustee’s view, the critical illness benefit is a survivor benefit and not a wage or wage substitute. So much for it being part of surplus income!

The Registrar correctly pointed out that none of the exemptions in s. 67 of the BIA mention a critical illness benefit payment. The Registrar could also not find a precedent exactly on point.


The closest cases the Registrar could find were those of when the undischarged bankrupt suffered an injury in a motor vehicle accident and had a claim for pain and suffering. In that case, the action is personal to the injured person, and therefore that claim does not fall under the definition of property of the bankrupt available to the Trustee.

The Registrar stated that he sees no sensible distinction why a tort-based damages insurance claim for pain and suffering would be dealt with in a different way than a contract-based insurance policy for the pain and suffering Ms. Cooke had from her illness.

Accordingly, the Registrar decided that the critical illness benefit payment did not create a component of property designated to the Trustee. He also stated that Ms. Cooke did not have to pay any amount, to the Trustee. The Registrar went on to say that the Trustee should have brought on an application to have this matter determined much earlier in the bankruptcy proceedings so that the Trustee would not have incurred as many costs as it had.

The Registrar directed that:

  1. Although the Registrar did not explicitly state it in his judgment, the implication certainly is that Ms. Cooke received an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.
  2. Moreover, the Trustee should bring on the application for the Trustee’s discharge.
  3. Similarly, the Trustee should keep the Registrar’s comments as to the Trustee should have brought on a motion on the critical illness benefit issue earlier when submitting its dockets to have its fee and costs taxed by the Court.

Canadian bankruptcy discharge: Do you have too much debt?

I hope that none of us ever suffer from such a critical illness. However, it is good that Ms. Cooke had that insurance coverage. Do you have too much debt, or debt that you can’t repay because life got in your way? Illness and job loss are two prime factors in reducing someone’s income and increasing their expenses. It could force people to have to live off of credit cards until there is no credit room left, and no ability to ever repay the debt.

If you have too much debt, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have years of experience in helping those people and companies where life got in the way. Perhaps you need a debt settlement plan. Alternatively, if bankruptcy is the only real answer, we can help ease the stress and pain of bankruptcy for you.

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 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.canadian bankruptcy

Call a Trustee Now!