36979  Darin Andrew Randle v. Her Majesty the Queen

(B.C.)

Criminal law – Evidence – “Mr. Big” confessions

Lenders should be aware that a broad definition of “wages” owing to employees of a borrower/customer in bankruptcy or receivership can take priority over what a lender might otherwise believe is its “first ranking charge” against the borrower.

Where a debtor's assets exceed his liabilities, the onus is on the debtor to prove he can not pay his debts if a creditor seeks to annul the bankruptcy order.

In Paulin v Paulin and another, the defendant petitioned for his own bankruptcy claiming he was unable to pay his debts. The claimant applied for the order to be annulled claiming the defendant could afford to pay his debts and was deliberately attempting to defeat her claims in the matrimonial proceedings.

In Paul L. Schnier v. Her Majesty the Queen,[1]  the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) dismissed a motion to quash an appeal brought on the basis that the appellant did not, as an undischarged bankrupt, have the capacity, pursuant to Section 71 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, to deal with property, including the ability to bring an appeal. The Appellant believed he was required to file the appeal, but did not obtain the trustee in bankruptcy’s permission when he commenced the appeal.

A party cannot appeal a decision made in bankruptcy proceedings by reason only of a personal interest in the outcome. An economic interest is a pre-requisite.

This was confirmed by the court in Sands and another v Monem and another, in which the bankrupt had transferred the interest in his home to his wife before being made bankrupt. The transfer was made allegedly in order to settle a debt, although this was not reflected in the documentation. That transfer was successfully set aside as a preference by the bankrupt's trustee.

An intervening bankruptcy will not defeat a charging order where the bankruptcy was entered into in an attempt to frustrate the charge.

Introduction

A bankruptcy discharge hearing is the forum for the Court’s determination of a bankrupt’s application for discharge which has been opposed by one or more of: a creditor, the Trustee, or the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. This paper will aim to provide practical advice on preparing for and arguing an opposed discharge, whether from the perspective of the bankrupt, an opposing creditor, or the Trustee.1

Discharge

This article was written by Greg Standing, partner in Wragge & Co LLP's finance, insolvency, recoveries and sales team and published in the July issue of Motor Finance.

When a claimant discontinues its claim, the usual position is that it has to pay the defendant's reasonable legal costs. This is the general presumption under the Civil Procedure Rules and applies unless there is good reason for it not to.

The absence of an intention to put assets out of the reach of creditors will thwart applications under the Insolvency Act to set declarations of trust or transfers aside.

Introduction

This paper aims to present a brief summary of significant legal decisions over the past year, as they relate to and impact Ontario consumer bankruptcy and insolvency practitioners. It is by no means necessarily comprehensive or exhaustive.

Effect of an Order of Discharge on driver’s licenses and outstanding penalties