Tag: legal issues

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

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION: OUR AUTHORITATIVE GUIDE ON WHAT (REALLY) GOES INTO FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION

fraudulent misrepresentation
fraudulent misrepresentation

An overview of fraudulent misrepresentation

Fraudulent misrepresentation can be incredibly damaging for the victim, both emotionally and financially. It occurs when someone makes a false statement about a material fact with the intention of inducing another person to rely on that statement, and the reliance causes damages.

Fraudulent misrepresentation is a civil wrong (tort) that can be the basis for a lawsuit. It can also be a crime, depending on the circumstances.
Anyone accused of fraudulent misrepresentation must speak to an experienced lawyer to discuss their case and the possible defences they may have.

Last week’s Brandon’s Blog, “MORTGAGE FRAUD IN CANADA: CANADIAN BANKRUPTCY CAN’T RELEASE YOU FROM A CORRUPT DEBT YOU CREATED“, I wrote about what mortgage fraud is and how it is perpetrated. I also described a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario on how anyone found guilty of mortgage fraud and had damages awarded against them will not be able to remove that debt by filing an assignment in bankruptcy.

I described how that kind of debt will not be discharged in bankruptcy because it is one of the exceptions outlined in section 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).

In this week’s Brandon’s Blog, I describe a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Bank of Montreal v. 1886758 Ontario Inc., 2022 ONSC 4642. This case is about fraudulent misrepresentation, why that kind of debt will also not be released by the guilty individual’s discharge from bankruptcy and the court’s attitude to that issue.

What are the three types of misrepresentation?

Over the years, misrepresentation legal issues have been tried in court and the law has developed such that misrepresentation can be divided into 3 types; innocent, negligent and fraudulent. If there are no consequences for lying or omitting important information when entering into a contract, then agreements between parties to conduct business would become meaningless. The concept of misrepresentation is important in contract law.

The differences between the 3 types of false misrepresentation are as follows:

  1. Innocent misrepresentation is when someone makes a false claim or untrue statement but honestly believes that the representation is true.
  2. Negligent misrepresentation: this is when someone makes a false claim without realizing that it is not true. They did not fulfill their duty of care when making statements to make sure they were not true.
  3. Fraudulent misrepresentation: this is when someone makes a false claim deliberately to deceive others.

    fraudulent misrepresentation
    fraudulent misrepresentation

When you make a false statement, you may face civil or criminal consequences. Common examples of making a false statement are:

  • to obtain or deny benefits arising from a contract, you may be guilty of fraud;
  • making a false statement under oath in court, you may be charged with perjury;
  • a false statement made that harms another person, you may be sued for defamation; and
  • to commit or help someone who committed a crime, may be obstruction of justice or criminal conspiracy

In civil case matters, the party who has suffered damages as a result of the misrepresentation will be awarded a monetary award by the court.

The court case: What’s the process for suing someone for fraudulent misrepresentation?

The process used by the Plaintiff, Bank of Montreal (“BMO”) was a legal claim by starting a claim for misrepresentation and recovery of the debt owing by way of a Statement of Claim for a default judgment and related relief against 1886758 Ontario Inc. operating as Rejuv Medical (“Rejuv Medical”) and its Director, who was a guarantor of the loans to Rejuv Medical, in a debt collection and fraud action by BMO.

The aggrieved party, BMO, filed its motion seeking:

  • An Order granting the Plaintiff default judgment against the Defendants is issued under Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. This includes a judgment in the aggregate sum of $442,723.36 as of June 29, 2021, plus accruing pre- and post-judgment interest from that date.
  • Claims for damages seeking an award for punitive damages of $150,000.
  • Substantial indemnification for all related costs, charges, expenses, and fees, including legal fees.
  • Sole possession of the assets of Rejuv Medical.
  • A declaration attesting that any amounts awarded by the court are debts resulting from obtaining property by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation.

    fraudulent misrepresentation
    fraudulent misrepresentation

The evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation

BMO and Rejuv Medical entered into a letter agreement on November 16, 2020, under which BMO will provide three credit facilities:

  • The first loan was for $350,000 under the Canada Small Business Financing Act, with interest at BMO’s prime rate plus 3.00% per annum.
  • BMO provided a $120,000 operating loan to Rejuv Medical, payable on demand with interest at the bank’s prime rate plus 2.15% per annum. This loan is in addition to the existing business account and will help with short-term operating expenses.
  • The third facility was a $30,000 commercial credit card agreement with an interest rate of 21.00% per annum.

BMO will only advance loan proceeds to eligible businesses for prescribed purposes, in accordance with the Canada Small Business Financing Act and its regulations. Accordingly, a loan applicant must specify and confirm how it will satisfy one of these prescribed purposes.

The principal of Rejuv Medical and guarantor of the proposed BMO credit facilities signed a Declaration on its behalf. The Declaration stated that the Borrower understands that, under the Canada Small Business Financing Regulations, loans cannot be made for certain purposes and under certain circumstances. To assist in the determination of whether a loan to the Borrower would be permitted under these regulations, the Borrower provided information to show that the first facility loan did qualify.

BMO learned later that the representations made were false and that the invoice provided as proof of purchase of qualifying equipment was a fabricated document.

At the time BMO determined that there were materially inaccurate and false representations made by Rejuv Medical and its Director the guarantor, Rejuv Medical defaulted on its obligations to BMO for the loans.

What are the potential damages that could be claimed for fraudulent misrepresentation in this case?

The motion judge stated that the Borrower and guarantor being noted in default and not defending the action are taken to be an admission that Rejuv Medical and its Director:

  • Never intended for the funds advanced to be used to purchase the equipment specified in the government loan program application process or the produced invoice.
  • Had no record of purchasing the equipment specified in the invoice, or any comparable property or asset.
  • Never intended to purchase the equipment in the manner represented, or at all.
  • Did not establish the small business with the intention of operating it for an extended period of time or making a profit.
  • Made false representations and declarations, knowing that they were false, without belief in their truth, or recklessly indifferent to whether the representations and declarations were true or false.
  • Making this fraudulent misrepresentation caused damages as BMO suffered losses and damages, including the amounts owing for the loans.

Concerning the debt collection aspect of this case, the evidence established that the loans in question have gone into default and have not been repaid. Thus there was a breach of contract.

Based on this evidence, it is clear that Rejuv Medical owes and is liable to pay BMO $442,723.36 as of June 29, 2021, plus accruing pre-and post-judgment interest. As a fraud case, in addition to the amount of the loans and accrued interest to be paid, the court also awarded BMO $150,000 in punitive damages.

fraudulent misrepresentation
fraudulent misrepresentation

What are the 5 elements of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim?

The court emphasized that the five elements of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim are:

  1. a defendant made a false statement;
  2. with full knowledge that the statement was false, or with complete indifference to its truthfulness, the statement was made;
  3. the intent to deceive;
  4. the false statement being material and inducing the Plaintiff to act; and
  5. the plaintiff has suffered damages.

BMO did not seek a direction that its claim would survive a bankruptcy discharge, as the debt would fall within s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (“BIA”). BMO made it clear that in the event the Defendants declare bankruptcy, it intends to rely on section 178 of the BIA.

You will recall from last week’s Brandon’s Blog, that section 178(1) of the BIA is the listing of the types of debts that are not released by a personal bankruptcy discharge. So if the guarantor ever declares bankruptcy, BMO’s debt will survive his discharge.

Section 178(1)(e) of the BIA specifically states that any debts or liabilities resulting from obtaining property or services through false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation will not be discharged through bankruptcy.

If the guarantor files for bankruptcy, BMO will seek an amendment to its judgment to declare that the debt still needs to be paid, and based on section 178(1) of the BIA, the debt will survive a discharge from bankruptcy. From my Brandon’s Blog of last week, it is evident that should the time come, BMO will get that further declaration.

You are not alone in this – get help from a Licensed Insolvency Trustee

I hope you enjoyed this Brandon’s Blog on fraudulent misrepresentation and how bankruptcy will not help the guilty defendant. Are you or your company in need of financial restructuring? Have you suffered damages because of reliance on false or misleading statements in business contract terms? 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 realize that people and businesses in financial difficulty need practical advice and a workable solution in an easy-to-understand financial plan. The Ira Smith Team knows that not everyone has to file for bankruptcy in Canada. Most of our clients never do, as we are familiar with alternatives to bankruptcy. We assist many people in finding the relief they need.

Call or email us. We can tailor a new debt restructuring procedure specifically for you, based on your unique economic situation and needs. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you’re serious about finding a solution, let us know.

Call us now for a no-cost initial consultation.

fraudulent misrepresentation
fraudulent misrepresentation

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

4 PILLARS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT: OUR DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO THE PEARCE V 4 PILLARS LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT

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.

4 Pillars class action lawsuit: What is a class action proceeding?

Class action lawsuits are familiar to many people. Group legal actions occur when a group of people who have been injured in the same way as defined by law seeks legal action on their behalf. A class action lawsuit involves plaintiffs (persons who have been injured) and defendants (people who are being sued) who are all brought together by the courts, who determine whether a settlement should be reached between them. A class action lawsuit claims to be owed money.

The British Columbia court certified a class-action lawsuit in Pearce v 4 Pillars Consulting Group Inc. (the “4 Pillars class action lawsuit”) on October 29, 2019. In my November 25, 2019, 4 PIllars class action lawsuit Brandon’s Blog titled, HOW DOES DEBT RELIEF WORK: APPARENTLY NOT GREAT 4 EVERYONE, I discussed the issues raised in this class-action lawsuit.

The British Columbia appellate court allowed the 4 Pillars class action lawsuit to proceed as a class action proceeding, dismissing the 4 Pillars’ objections. In my May 24, 2021, 4 PILLARS LAWSUIT GETS GIGANTIC APPROVAL TO PROCEED FROM COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Brandon’s Blog I wrote about that decision.

In this 4 Pillars class action lawsuit, the British Columbia Court approved a settlement plan on January 13, 2022. According to the court, the Settlement Administration Plan has been approved and shall be implemented and enforced. In this Brandon’s Blog, I give a brief overview of the 4 Pillars class action lawsuit and describe the Settlement Administration Plan.

4 Pillars class action lawsuit: The 4 Pillars lawsuit class-action

The 4 Pillars class action lawsuit was filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court against 4 Pillars Consulting Group Inc. It is alleged that 4 Pillars’ debt consulting business has violated the provincial Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) and the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

Mr. Paul Pearce attempted to certify his action as a class action. This lawsuit seeks to recoup damages for the debt consulting fees that 4 Pillars charged its clients. The fees were paid in connection with: (i) a consumer proposal under the BIA; or (ii) an informal debt settlement proposal with the person’s creditors, all after April 1, 2016.4 Pillars class action lawsuit: B.C. Court of Appeal Finds Class Action Waiver Clause Unconscionable and Contrary to Public Policy

4 Pillars Consulting Group Inc. appealed the lower court’s 4 Pillars class action lawsuit decision to the Court of Appeal. Its decision was released on May 17, 2021. In agreement with the lower court, the court ruled that a genuine issue must be determined at trial based on all the evidence. So the 4 Pillars’ request to strike the plaintiffs’ BPCPA claims was denied by the judge. The certification stage approved by the lower court was upheld on appeal.

According to 4 Pillars, the class action waiver clauses in its standard form contract signed by its clients and the contracting process they agreed to, barred them from participating in any class proceedings including a class dispute resolution process or class arbitrations. This court ruled that such a class action waiver clause contractual term violated public policy considerations and the substantive rights that the class claimants should have.

There was a substantial conflict between the class action waiver and the administration of justice, as found by the court. That contractual term would successfully bar class actions. It was held to be an unfair contract and that there was unequal bargaining power.

Essentially, class action waiver clauses denied Mr. Pearce, and the class members, access to justice and a legal dispute resolution procedure for claims arising from the connection between them. Accordingly, class certification was upheld and the enforceability of class action waiver clauses was held to be in violation of the class members’ rights and on public policy grounds.

As a result of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia’s decision, access to justice will be given and a trial will be necessary to determine all the legal issues including whether claims can arise from BIA-related offenses. Therefore, 4 Pillars also did not succeed in having this issue struck from the 4 Pillars lawsuit. The claimants wanted to proceed to get their measure of justice.

4 Pillars class action lawsuit: What the Court of Appeal for British Columbia says about the role of 4 Pillars

Both courts found that the 4 Pillars debt restructuring services were:

  • meeting debt-stricken consumers who are either insolvent or on the verge of insolvency and working with them as advisors to individuals;
  • assisting those on the brink of insolvency in drafting a consumer proposal for a LIT;
  • engaging in back and forth discussions with the LIT in an effort to get the LIT to agree to a consumer proposal that is favorable to the debtor;
  • input, on behalf of the debtor, on any response or request from creditors;
  • debtors are charged upfront regardless of whether 4 Pillars actually achieve debt relief for the debtor; and
  • charge higher fees than licensed and regulated professionals.

Debt restructuring businesses (those not licensed by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy) charge this way in general. It is unclear what value they provide if any. Their business model preys on people’s fears of getting advice directly from Licensed Insolvency Trustees.

Services described above are provided by a Trustee at no additional charge over and above the tariff fee set by the government. During our no-cost initial consultation, I provide financial advice regarding unmanageable debt and if you are a candidate for informal debt settlement, I will let you know exactly what to do. In cases where you have too much personal debt and are not eligible for an informal settlement, I have prepared many consumer proposals that have worked. I also serve as a credit counsellor as part of that process.

4 pillars class action lawsuit
4 pillars class action lawsuit

B.C. Supreme Court decision leads to 4 Pillars class action lawsuit settlement

As a result of the class action in British Columbia, I wondered if 4 Pillars would have trouble in Ontario and elsewhere because the appellate court denied the appeal and sent the 4 Pillars lawsuit to trial. It is obvious that 4 Pillars do not want these legal questions answered by a court trial. I also stated that there is a strong possibility that this 4 Pillars class action lawsuit may ultimately strike directly at the heart of the business model of 4 Pillars. Canadian franchisees need to be concerned.

4 Pillars must have been troubled by this too, in addition to losing the litigation and a verdict based on BIA-related offences and running afoul of the legislative intent of the BIA. The 4 Pillars class action lawsuit settlement was negotiated because the company could not afford to lose at trial and they obviously found this to be the most acceptable alternative to litigation. On January 13, 2022, the court approved the Settlement Administration Plan. There is now commercial certainty in BC as a result of this settlement.

It is feasible that a portion of the costs claimants paid to 4 Pillars locations in British Columbia might be refunded as a result of the negotiated settlement. The class action alleges that 4 Pillars franchise businesses breached the BPCPA by providing debt restructuring solutions. The 4 Pillars class action lawsuit sought restitution for monies 4 Pillars supposedly received unjustifiably. Accusations made versus the Defendants are unproven, as well they are rejected by 4 Pillars.

The 4 Pillars class action lawsuit was certified that all persons who paid 4 Pillars fees for a consumer proposal under the BIA or an informal debt repayment proposal with their creditors in BC between April 16, 2016, and August 15, 2021 (the “Class”) are entitled to join. Paul Pearce was appointed as the plaintiff’s representative by the court.

Three settlement agreements were approved by the Honourable Justice Mayer of the British Columbia Supreme Court on January 29, 2021, and November 15, 2021. As a compromise of disputed claims, these settlements are not an admission or finding of liability by the settling Defendants. The approved settlements shows that the goals of class proceedings are being met.

​4 Pillars class action lawsuit settlement: What are the terms of the settlement?

Class members who submit claims are eligible to receive a refund of up to 100% of the eligible fees they paid. Collectively, the Defendants have set up a $7,000,000 Settlement Fund to pay the claims. In addition, a claim that will be assigned to the Class against one of Defendant’s insurers could result in a recovery of up to $800,000.

A person’s refund will be figured out by the total quantity of claims made against this Settlement Fund after paying the approved legal expenses. The quantity of the Settlement Fund readily available to pay claims will be pro-rated if the full amount of claims is less than the Settlement Fund available to pay claims.

The Court has approved legal fees on a contingency fee basis equal to 1/3 of the Settlement Fund (plus taxes) and $103,533.31 in disbursements (including taxes and interest). The Settlement Agreements and Settlement Administration Plan contain all the terms and conditions of this court-approved settlement.

4 Pillars class action lawsuit settlement: How do I make a claim?

​To receive compensation under the settlement, each Class member must complete the online Claim Form by April 28, 2022. The potential claim will be vetted and if it meets the qualifications approved by the court, the claim will be admitted as an approved claim. There is more than one class of individuals able to claim on the Settlement Fund.

4 pillars class action lawsuit
4 pillars class action lawsuit

​4 Pillars class action lawsuit settlement: What if I don’t want to participate?

​In order to opt out of the lawsuit, people not wanting to submit their individual claims must notify class counsel in writing to the Canadian lawyer acting on behalf of the class by not later than April 28, 2022, providing your name and address and indicating that you wish to opt out. Should you opt out of the settlement, you will not receive compensation.

​4 Pillars class action lawsuit settlement: Settlement Claims Deadline

​To receive compensation under this settlement of the representative action, people must submit their individual claims by submitting a Claim Form by April 28, 2022.

4 pillars class action lawsuit
4 pillars class action lawsuit

4 Pillars class action lawsuit settlement: Trouble ahead for 4 Pillars in Ontario and elsewhere because of the class action in British Columbia?

I’m looking forward to seeing if this 4 Pillars class action lawsuit settlement is pursued in the Superior Courts of other provinces for the administration of justice where other 4 Pillars franchisees operate. I hope you found this 4 Pillars class action lawsuit Brandon Blog informative.

Are you worried because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges 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 while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve.

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. We help many people and companies stay clear of 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, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We will get you or your business back up driving to healthy and balanced trouble-free operations and get rid of the discomfort factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

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.

4 pillars class action lawsuit
4 pillars class action lawsuit
Call a Trustee Now!