Tag: Ontario Court of Appeal

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

BANKRUPTCY LAW, A SHOE STORE CHAIN AND GOLF: WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN COMMON?

bankruptcy law

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this BANKRUPTCY LAW, A SHOE STORE CHAIN AND GOLF: WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN COMMON? Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom and click on the podcast.

Introduction

I am writing this Brandon’s Blog more as an interesting story for those that live in the GTA and enjoy golf. Although as you will see, bankruptcy law does play a major role in this tale, it really is a story about what is probably the most famous Canadian golf course.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Canada

Before getting into the interesting Greater Toronto Area golf course story, by way of background to it, I will first describe the bankruptcy law aspect.

A bankrupt shoe store chain workers lost their jobs when a Receiving Order (as a Bankruptcy Order was then called) was made putting an Ontario shoe store chain, Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., into bankruptcy. All salaries, wages, commissions and vacation pay were paid to the date of bankruptcy. The province’s Ministry of Labour audited the company’s payroll books and records.

The Ministry’s audit determined that although the employees were all paid up to date, liability for termination or severance pay was owing to former employees under the Employment Standards Act (ESA). The Ministry delivered a proof of claim to the bankruptcy trustee (now called a Licensed Insolvency Trustee) (Trustee).

The Trustee disallowed the claim under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA). The Trustee’s disallowance was based on the ground that the bankruptcy of an employer acts to terminate the employment of the workers. This does not constitute termination by an employer. Therefore, no such liability for severance or termination pay exists.

The appeal of the Trustee’s disallowance

The Ministry successfully appealed the Trustee’s disallowance to the Ontario Court (General Division). The Trustee appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The appellate court restored the Trustee’s decision. The Ministry sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but ultimately terminated that application.

After the discontinuance of the appeal, the Trustee paid a dividend to Rizzo’s creditors, therefore leaving much fewer funds in the bankruptcy estate.

After that, five previous staff members of Rizzo applied to set aside the discontinuance, add themselves as applicants to the Supreme Court of Canada leave to appeal. An order was made approving them to continue the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision

In a 1998 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately decided that the bankruptcy of an employer does terminate the employment of the workers. However, the Court felt that it was necessary to take a wider view of the ESA. The Court felt that one of the objects of the ESA was to protect the rights of employees when they lost their job. A finding that the severance and termination pay sections of the ESA to not apply in bankruptcy circumstances is incompatible with both the object of the ESA.

The Court went on to find that the legislature does not intend to generate ridiculous results if employees dismissed before the bankruptcy of an employer would generate a completely different result than those employees who lost their job by the bankruptcy of an employer.

Therefore, the Supreme Court of Canada found that employee rights to severance pay or termination pay is a claim provable in bankruptcy even if the dismissal occurred by the bankruptcy of the employer. This claim is an ordinary unsecured claim and does not have any priority.

The broader effect of the Supreme Court of Canada Rizzo & Rizzo decision

The obvious effect of the Rizzo & Rizzo decision is the bankruptcy law decision. However, the decision also stands for the concept that a statue must be looked at in a broader context. The Supreme Court decision in paragraph 21 states that “…statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone”.

It goes on to say that “Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.”. This codified what can be called a modern approach to the interpretation of legislation.

So what does this have to do with a golf course?

Looking at the title of this Brandon’s Blog, I think I have now covered off the first two parts, namely, bankruptcy law and shoe store. Now for golf! On October 23, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in Oakville (Town) v. Clublink Corporation ULC, 2019 ONCA 826.

All golfers in the GTA know that Clublink owns and operates a chain of golf clubs in Ontario and Quebec, as well as Florida. The most famous and iconic golf course in the Clublink family and all of Canada is Glen Abbey in Oakville, ON. Clublink purchased this golf course in 1999.

Glen Abbey was the initial golf course solely created by Jack Nicklaus, one of the greatest professional golfers of all-time. The style of the course shows a specific focus on the viewer experience. Along with this value, the Town of Oakville believes Glen Abbey has substantial historical value. Glen Abbey has held the Canadian Open 30 times – 3 times greater than any other course in Canada. It, therefore, is connected with some of the most memorable events in Canadian golf history.

The 18th hole is significant as a result of its connection to Tiger Woods. In the final round of the 2000 Canadian Open, he hit a six-iron shot 218 yards from a bunker on the right side of the fairway to about 18 feet from the hole. The shot had to fly over a huge pond protecting the green.

On October 22, 2015, Clublink told the Town that they plan to redevelop Glen Abbey into a residential and mixed-use neighbourhood. Clublink proposed to develop 3,000 to 3,200 residences and 140,000 to 170,000 square feet of office and retail space. If Clublink’s plan to build succeeds, the word “four” will no longer be yelled out on the property!

The Court case

In November 2016, Clublink submitted applications to change the Town’s Official Plan and zoning by-laws and looked for authorization of a plan of subdivision, in connection with its redevelopment plan of Glen Abbey. In 2017, the Town recognized Glen Abbey as a considerable cultural heritage property under s. 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). This notification stated the property’s cultural heritage value according to the provincial requirements of the OHA.

Clublink did not object to the heritage designation. Rather, they made an application to the Town under section 34 of the OHA to demolish and remove Glen Abbey. The Town alerted Clublink that their s. 34 application was legally beyond the range of a section 34 OHA application but was correctly within the range of s. 33 of the OHA which permits an owner to relate to altering a designated property.

Clublink commenced its very own application in the Superior Court for an affirmation that they could make an application under s. 34 of the OHA “for the demolition and removal of buildings and structures on the lands municipally known as 1313 and 1333 Dorval Drive … including but not limited to the tees, greens, hazards, fairways and cart paths”. Clublink was successful in its application and the Town of Oakville appealed the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

What is the difference?

A study of the OHA is not why I am writing this Brandon’s Blog. The important point to know is that under s. 33 of the OHA, the owner may appeal to the Conservation Review Board. The Conservation Review Board holds a hearing and produces a report, in which it is to recommend whether the application must or ought to not be authorized. The Conservation Review Board’s report is not binding on the metropolitan council.

Unlike s. 33, if the metropolitan council rejects the owner’s application under s. 34, the owner of the property can appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). The local council is bound by the LPAT decision.

So as you can see, Clublink needs the Court ruling to stand that its s. 34 application is the correct one.

Is a golf course a structure?

In order to be successful, Clublink needs to prove that a golf course is a structure. The application judge found that Glen Abbey is both composed of structures as well as the golf course itself is a structure for the objective of s. 34 of the OHA. Clublink had actually correctly mounted its application under s. 34.

The application judge reached this decision because of the uncontroverted evidence before him was that Glen Abbey was the product of substantial engineering, design and construction. Relying on judicial and also administrative decisions from other contexts, he decided up that a golf course fits within the meaning of a “structure” as being a “thing constructed”.

After a very lengthy analysis, the Ontario Court of Appeal, with one Judge dissenting, confirmed the lower court’s decision.

So what does this have to do with Canadian bankruptcies laws?

The majority decision relied upon the Rizzo & Rizzo case. The Ontario Court of Appeal followed the confirmation in the bankruptcy law case by the Supreme Court of Canada that a strict dictionary or common usage interpretation of the word “structure” was inappropriate. A “…statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone”.

Rather, a wider modern law approach must be used. The “…words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention…”. Therefore, finding that a golf course has detailed engineering, design and construction, it is a structure and Clublink was correct.

This is how bankruptcy law ties into a bankrupt Ontario shoe store chain and a golf course. It took a bit of a journey to piece it all together, but I am so glad that you stuck with me.

Summary

As you can see, not everything necessarily is how it appears at first blush. When I look out onto a golf course, I would never say, “what a marvellous structure”, but it is.

In the same way, financial decisions that we make along the way do not always turn out as we once thought it would be. Sometimes these decisions are forced upon us by life getting in the way, and sometimes they are voluntary. Nevertheless, when financial hardships strike, you need to find a way to solve your financial problems.

Do you have way too much debt? Before you reach the phase where you can’t stay afloat and where financial restructuring is no longer a viable alternative, contact the Ira Smith Team. We know full well the discomfort and tension excessive debt can create. We can help you to eliminate that pain and address your financial issues supplying timely, realistic and easy to implement action steps in finding the optimal strategy created just for you.

Call Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. today. Make a free appointment to visit with one of the Ira Smith Team for a totally free, no-obligation assessment. You can be on your path to a carefree life Starting Over, Starting Now. Give us a call today so that we can help you return to an anxiety-free and pain-free life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TRUSTEE ACT ONTARIO BY A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE

Trustee Act Ontario: Introduction

I want to highlight a provincial statute that is also important for the administration of a deceased estate; the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23 (Trustee Act Ontario). This blog continues my blog series to show how it would be proper to appoint a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or bankruptcy trustee) (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) as the estate trustee (formerly called an executor or executrix) of a solvent deceased estate.

As always, since we 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.

My prior estate blogs

In my blog TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I looked at some essential matters when it involves a deceased estate and why a LIT would be extremely knowledgable and competent to act as an estate trustee of a deceased estate with those basic requirements.

In the blog, TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?, I explained why many times parents try doing the proper thing by appointing their children as estate trustees and how many times it just turns out all wrong.

In ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, I describe how the requirements and provisions of the Estates Act are already very familiar to a bankruptcy trustee. In fact, most of the duties required by the Estates Act are already performed in the insolvency context by a LIT.

My blog ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO, I explained why a LIT is a right professional to lead the administration of Estates Act Canada.

In this and my next blog, I will focus on two more Ontario statutes that impact the administration of a deceased estate by an estate trustee. The three statutes are:

  1. Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23; and
  2. Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26

As you have by now correctly guessed, in this blog, I will show how a bankruptcy trustee would be very familiar with the workings of this provincial legislation.

Things an estate trustee must be aware of

There are various sections of the Trustee Act Ontario that affects the duties and responsibilities of an estate trustee in administering a deceased estate. All the concepts are very familiar to a LIT.

Power of court to appoint new trustees

Section 5(1) of this statute gives the Ontario Superior Court of Justice the authority to make an Order for the appointment of a new trustee. This is the same Court that we attend for Court-appointed receivership and bankruptcy matters. So, a LIT is very familiar with the workings and requirements of this Court.

Who may apply for the appointment of a new trustee, or vesting order

Section 16(1) of this provincial statute says that anyone who has a beneficial interest in the property of the trust can apply for the appointment of a new trustee. This is very similar to how a Court-appointed Receiver is appointed. Although it is normally a secured creditor who makes the application, in theory, it could be any party that has an interest. Section 101(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 states that a receivership Order may be made “…where it seems to a judge of the court to be just or convenient to do so.”. It is the “just and convenient” clause that was relied upon by the judge when we were appointed Receiver and Manager of the assets, properties and undertakings of The Suites at 1 King West condo strata hotel back in August 2007.

For this reason, as a LIT, we are very familiar with this aspect of appointing a trustee.

Power and discretion of trustee for sale

In my blog ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO, I referred to sections 16 and 17 of the Estates Administration Act. Section 17 in particular, provides the estate trustee with the power to pay off the debts of the deceased. It also allows a trustee to distribute or divide the estate among the beneficiaries.

Section 17 of the provincial Act provides the trustee with the authority to sell, but subject to the requirements of the Estates Administration Act.

A LIT, either in receivership or bankruptcy, is extremely acquainted and experienced in the sale of real and personal property. The LIT likewise makes certain that the creditors are paid in the correct order of priority.

Sales by trustees not impeachable on certain grounds

Section 18(1) deals with a certain aspect of the sale of the property. It states that unless it is proven that there was an inadequate sales price, a sale properly made cannot be impeached by any beneficiary. Any beneficiary wanting to try to impeach a sale must prove that the process used resulted in a sales price at less than fair market value.

Similarly, in a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy, the LIT must be able to prove that both the conditions of the sales process and the sales price achieved, was right for the types of assets in the circumstances.

The leading case is the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp., 1991 CanLII 2727 (ON CA). The process a LIT must follow is known as the “Soundair principles”. This is the test used when deciding whether a receiver or trustee applying for Court approval of a sales process and the authority to sell assets has acted properly. The Court must decide whether the receiver or trustee has:

  • made a sufficient effort to get the best price and has not acted improvidently;
  • considered the interests of all parties;
  • Devised a fair process that has integrity by which offers were obtained; and
  • Introduced any element of unfairness in the working out of the process.

Therefore, I submit, that a LIT is very experienced in devising a sales process and selling assets in a way that is fair to all stakeholders or beneficiaries to attempt to maximize sales proceeds.

Trust funds and investing

Section 26 of the Act deals with the area of the requirement for a trustee to maintain trust accounts and to invest trust property in a way that will maximize the return while not putting the capital at risk to swings in investment pricing, inflation or income tax.

The LIT is very familiar and experienced in trust accounts and the investing of trust funds. Section 25 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) deals with the requirement of a trustee to establish trust accounts. Also, the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Directive no. 5R5 deals with Estate funds and banking. The Superintendent also monitors the banking of trust funds by all LITs across Canada.

Therefore a LIT is very knowledgeable and experienced in the banking, investing and protection of trust funds.

Security by the person appointed

If letters of administration were granted under the Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.21, section 37(2) of the provincial legislation requires every trustee to post security.

I discussed in my blog ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, the experience of a LIT in the posting of security by way of an insurance company bond.

Actions for torts

Section 38(1) of the provincial statute gives authority to an estate trustee of a deceased person to maintain an action for all torts and injuries to the deceased person or his or her property, except in cases of libel and slander. Any recovery forms part of the deceased’s personal estate. Section 38(3) provides for a limitation on such actions. The action cannot be brought after the expiration of two years from the date of death.

As a LIT, this is a familiar concept to us. When a person or company is insolvent and has a chose in action against one or more parties, such action can be started or continued by a receiver or bankruptcy trustee. In fact, in a bankruptcy, the action actually vests in the trustee.

The receiver or trustee has to make sure that they have a legal opinion on the likelihood of success. The receiver or trustee also has to make sure that they can afford to fund the litigation. The litigation cost cannot reduce the value of the assets under administration. This includes the issue of costs if the action proves unsuccessful.

Distribution of assets under trust deeds for benefit of creditors, or of the assets of the intestate

Section 53(1) of the Act lays out the requirements of a trustee to make a distribution for the general benefit of creditors. As I have described in previous blogs, Section 135 of the BIA deals with the admission and disallowance of proofs of claim and proofs of security.

A LIT is an expert at sorting out creditor claims and could certainly do so under the Trustee Act also.

Trustee Act Ontario: Summary

I hope that this blog reveals to you how the provisions of this provincial statute, detailing the duties of a trustee or estate trustee tracks really close to how a LIT performs in either a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy administration.

Therefore, the LIT is used to acting as a Court officer and could very easily perform the requirements and duties of a trustee as described in this provincial legislation.

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 my next blog, I am going to write a similar comparison. It will be about the requirements outlined in the Succession Law Reform Act and how a LIT is most familiar with it also.

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

 

trustee act ontario

Call a Trustee Now!