Tag: bankruptcy order

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

DECLARING BANKRUPTCY: REAL ESTATE COMPANY LOSES CHALLENGE ON CORPORATE BANKRUPTCY APPEAL

Declaring bankruptcy: Business insolvency

When the corporate finances are such that the business has an insufficient cash flow to cover its operating expenses and pay its debts when they come due, these financial difficulties create the financial condition of insolvency for the business. Another indicator of insolvency often exists at the same time: if you were to sell all of the company’s assets, you would not be able to raise enough money to pay off its outstanding debt.

Medcap Real Estate Holdings Inc. (Medcap) is an Ontario corporation that owns certain commercial real estate. Medcap’s principal, through other companies which he owns or controls, operates various fitness facilities.

Several creditors made a bankruptcy application to the Court to wind up Medcap’s business through a corporate bankruptcy. In December 2021, the Judge released his decision to issue a bankruptcy order and place the company in the legal position of bankruptcy. Medcap appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I discuss the two ways there are for declaring bankruptcy and highlight the reasoning of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in dismissing this company’s appeal for its corporate bankruptcy.

Declaring bankruptcy: An overview of corporate bankruptcy

In Canada, a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders or Directors and Officers. So a company can go into corporate bankruptcy, as opposed to a person entering personal bankruptcy, also known as consumer bankruptcy. There are two ways a company (or a person) can go bankrupt.

The first way is that a company (or person) files for bankruptcy by filing an assignment in bankruptcy with a licensed insolvency trustee. This is called a voluntary assignment into bankruptcy. The second way, which is what happened to Medcap, is that they are pushed into bankruptcy.

To push a limited company (person) into bankruptcy, one or more creditors, each owed at least $1,000, make a bankruptcy application to the court. The application will include a sworn affidavit from the people with knowledge of the situation providing evidence as to why the company (the person) is insolvent, what acts of bankruptcy the business (person) committed within 6 months preceding the date of the application and requesting that a bankruptcy order be made against the debtor.

Regardless of the types of bankruptcy proceedings that may be involved, these are the only two ways for companies with crippling debt to become bankrupt. It is either voluntary or an involuntary one.

declaring bankruptcy
declaring bankruptcy

Declaring bankruptcy: Types of Corporate Bankruptcy

A company that ends up declaring bankruptcy may be doing so for a variety of reasons, all of which relate to significant financial losses. In Canada, there are two primary types of bankruptcy filings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

Once the company is insolvent and no longer viable, declaring bankruptcy in order to have liquidation of assets and end the business in that legal entity is the next step. In this situation, there may be certain business debts that are also a personal liability of the corporate Directors. Unremitted source deductions and HST and unpaid wages and vacation pay fall into this category.

Bankruptcy is a tricky topic. Many people tend to fear it, thinking of it as the end of the road. Given my description above of bankruptcy being for liquidating the company assets, that is understandable.

But what about the company that is insolvent but the business is very viable if the bad parts are cut out? In this kind of situation, filing under the BIA using the restructuring provisions of this federal statute, or for larger companies, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), is a legal way for the company to restructure its debts to get its finances back in order. In a successful restructuring, the good parts of the business are restructured and preserved, the company’s finances are right-sized and most if not all jobs are saved. This form of declaring bankruptcy is what is referred to in the media as bankruptcy protection.

So in Canada, declaring bankruptcy is one type, but declaring bankruptcy protection is also possible. That is why I suggest in Canada, there are 2 types of business-specific options in corporate bankruptcy filings.

Declaring bankruptcy: Does corporate bankruptcy affect personal assets?

The legal separation of personal and corporate assets is clear. However, a company declaring bankruptcy may have an impact on the personal assets of certain people. There are situations where personal assets may be at risk. If you are concerned about your personal assets, you should consult with a legal professional to assess your individual case.

Before making any business or investment decisions, is when you should get that professional advice. Once a corporate bankruptcy filing has been made, it will be too late to properly plan for that situation. Personal assets could be at risk if it is a bankruptcy liquidation and not a successful restructuring.

Examples of when personal assets may be at risk because of business bankruptcies include:

  • the entrepreneur who had to give a personal guarantee of certain corporate debt financial obligations to the company’s primary secured creditor lender and in a liquidation of the company’s assets, the lender suffers a shortfall;
  • there is not enough money left over from the liquidation after any trust claims and secured creditor claims to pay the outstanding wages and vacation pay so the Directors’ personal assets may be at risk;
  • the liquidation value of the assets is essentially zero so the Directors are called upon by Canada Revenue Agency to repay any unremitted employee source deductions or HST amounts;
  • in bankruptcy liquidation, there is generally nothing available to repay investors or shareholders so the money an individual investor or shareholder loses certainly affects their personal assets and personal property. The stock of companies that liquidated their assets after declaring bankruptcy is worthless; and
  • any creditors that are unincorporated, being either a proprietorship or partnership who lose some or all of the amounts owed to them as ordinary unsecured creditors clearly affect the personal assets of those business owners.

Declaring bankruptcy: The Medcap case

With this discussion of corporations declaring bankruptcy, there are some interesting points to be learned from the Medcap appeal case and the bankruptcy process. The application judge dismissed the bankruptcy applications of all but one of the applicants. He issued the bankruptcy order and appointed the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy or bankruptcy trustee) which began Medcap’s administration of bankruptcy.

The Medcap company appealed the bankruptcy order on only one ground; the judge who made the original order failed to exercise his discretion on whether or not to dismiss the application. Medcap did not appeal the application judge’s finding that the prerequisites to the making of a bankruptcy order – a debt owing to an applicant of at least $1,000 and the commission of an act of bankruptcy within six months of the commencement of the application – had been met!

The most interesting part of the Court of Appeal’s decision is the discussion of the two factors that a court could look at where a judge could exercise discretion to justify refusing an otherwise proven bankruptcy application.

declaring bankruptcy
declaring bankruptcy

Declaring bankruptcy: Appealing a bankruptcy order

As mentioned previously, Medcap did not contest the judge’s conclusion that the creditor whose bankruptcy application was allowed had met the requirements under s. 43(1) of the BIA. This is that Medcap owed them a debt exceeding $1,000 and that Medcap committed an act of bankruptcy within 6 months before the filing of that bankruptcy application.

The application judge found that Medcap had failed to pay that creditor’s debt, for which a judgment was issued, despite demands. This is defined as an act of bankruptcy in s. 42(1)(j) of the BIA. In its appeal, the Medcap company argued that, even though the debt and the act of bankruptcy were proven, the application judge made a mistake by not using his discretionary power under s. 43(7) of the BIA to dismiss the application.

Medcap made three arguments to support its appeal: (i) that the trial judge erred in finding that Medcap was unable to pay its debts; (ii) that he erred in finding that the application was brought for an improper motive; and (iii) that he erred in finding that the bankruptcy order would serve no purpose.

Let’s see what the Court of Appeal for Ontario said about this.

Declaring bankruptcy: Unable to pay its debts

This is the first of the three bankruptcy issues that the Court of Appeal looked at. Medcap argued that the application judge dismissed the applications of all applicants but one because there was potential that they were not creditors. Medcap also stated that the application judge had not taken into account that Medcap had reached a settlement with the one creditor whose application was allowed to be heard. Medcap submitted that the application judge erred in not taking this into account as there was no debt owing because of the settlement and the payment of that settlement.

The appellate court found that the lower court judge did not err in rejecting Medcap’s argument. An application for bankruptcy is not solely for the benefit of the applicant creditor, but for the rights of creditors, ALL creditors. Further, the arrangements between the applicant creditor and the debtor will not be able to justify the withdrawal or dismissal of a bankruptcy application, unless the court is satisfied that the debtor is solvent and that other creditors will not be prejudiced by the withdrawal or dismissal.

To be able to pay debts as set out in the BIA, the evidence must be provided for all debts owed, as well as the debtor’s ability to pay them. In other words, the debtor must prove that they are solvent. Medcap did not provide such evidence. Therefore this ground of appeal was dismissed.

Declaring bankruptcy: Bankruptcy application for improper motives

Medcap argued that in cases where a creditor has an ulterior motive for filing a bankruptcy application, this can be sufficient cause for dismissal of the application. The Court of Appeal said that the existence of a motive is a question of fact, and the application judge considered and rejected the suggestion that there was such a motive in this case.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge was within his rights to reject the argument based on the record. Therefore, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found no justification to interfere and dismissed the appeal on that ground.declaring bankruptcy

Declaring bankruptcy: There is no purpose for this bankruptcy

Medcap argued that the application judge erred in failing to find that no purpose would be served by bankruptcy. He ought to have dismissed the application on the basis that there was nothing to be gained by making a bankruptcy order.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that safeguarding creditors is crucial to insolvency proceedings. A debtor who has (a) committed an act of bankruptcy by not paying debts when they come due, and (b) failed to provide evidence to the court demonstrating the ability to do so, carries the burden of proving that bankruptcy would be pointless. The judge was correct in finding that Medcap had not met that burden.

The three-panel judge went on to say that, in order to demonstrate that there is no purpose for the Medcap bankruptcy, they would need to show that a better result would be achieved for creditors if it were allowed time to restructure under the commercial proposal provisions of the BIA or the provisions of the CCAA.

Medcap did not argue that doing either would have the requisite creditor support but rather suggested that leaving it up to them would be best.

The three appellate court judges hearing this case unanimously rejected Medcap’s appeal, upholding the lower court’s ruling and allowing the bankruptcy process legal proceedings to continue. At this point, the licensed trustee named in the bankruptcy order begins administering the bankruptcy legal process.

Declaring bankruptcy: The final word

What fascinated me most about this case was the nerve of Medcap to argue that the application judge should have declined to make the bankruptcy order, regardless of all the evidence against it.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario soundly rejected the appeal of the bankruptcy order being issued after analyzing the bankruptcy application process in Canada. It concluded that only a real possibility of a successful restructuring under either the BIA or CCAA to avoid bankruptcy liquidation would be a reason to do so.

I hope this Brandon’s Blog on the Medcap case was helpful to you in understanding more about declaring bankruptcy, corporate bankruptcy and how the Ontario court would decide if it was appropriate to issue a bankruptcy order. Hopefully, you have also gained insight into how a corporate bankruptcy decision is made and how a successful corporate bankruptcy protection filing and restructuring can be beneficial.

We understand how you feel. You’re stressed out and anxious because you can’t fix your or your company’s financial situation on your own. But don’t worry. As a government-licensed insolvency professional firm, we can help you get your personal or corporate finances back on track.

If you’re struggling with money problems, call the Ira Smith Team today. We’ll work with you to develop a personalized plan to get you back on track and stress-free, all while avoiding the bankruptcy process if at all possible.

Call us today and get back on the path to a healthy stress-free life.

declaring bankruptcy
declaring bankruptcy
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN ONTARIO: THE UNCERTAINTY BEHIND ONTARIO’S LIMITATION PERIOD IN BANKRUPTCY NOW ABSOLUTELY SETTLED

statute of limitations in ontario
statute of limitations in ontario

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.

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version, please scroll to the very bottom and click play on the podcast.

Statute of limitations in Ontario: The uncertainty behind Ontario’s limitation period for debt collection

Many individuals have a problem determining the statute of limitations in Ontario for financial debt collection under the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B. This confusion is all-natural because the time duration is computed based upon the moment when a creditor knew, or ought to have actually recognized that it had a claim to get legal advice on and initiate legal action for recovery.

The unpredictability emerges because the point you need to begin determining from is not necessarily a certain date you can indicate on the calendar. Rather, it may need to be presumed from the realities in any specific situation.

Why does the limitation period matter? It matters because if a creditor does not initiate legal action within the allowed period of time in Ontario within 2 years of knowing, or having out to have known, that it had a claim to litigate, the claim is then statute-barred. What this means is that the claim can no longer be pursued as a valid debt.

In this Brandon Blog, I describe what seems to be the final word now on the statute of limitations in Ontario and proving your claim in bankruptcy.

Statute of limitations in Ontario: Time limits, collections and bankruptcy

If you think it was confusing for only the average Ontario citizen, think again. It was also confusing for lawyers and licensed insolvency trustees. In my March 15, 2021, Brandon Blog titled “STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: IS STATUTE BARRED DEBT A BASIC PROPER BANKRUPTCY CLAIM IN ONTARIO?“, I described the decision of Master Mills (as she then was) who has since been elevated to the position of a Judge.

Her decision released on March 8, 2021, in. the legal proceeding of In re: John Trevor Eyton, 2021 ONSC 1719 (CanLII), has changed the way we look at creditors who file a proof of claim in either a consumer proposal, restructuring proposal or a bankruptcy. Just to refresh your memory, she decided that if a claim was past the two-year limit under the statute of limitations in Ontario, then the creditor could not even file a proof of claim in bankruptcy on that debt.

In that blog, I also described what the statute means for debt collectors. I also said that the Eyton decision was going to be appealed. Well, it was and we now have the ruling from a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (In Bankruptcy and Insolvency).

statute of limitations in ontario
statute of limitations in ontario

Statute of limitations in Ontario and bankruptcy

The appeal raises a rarely-considered and narrow issue: is a claim which is statute-barred under the statute of limitations in Ontario able to be included by a creditor in filing a Form 31 proof of claim in the bankruptcy of the debtor?

On May 19, 2021, Justice S.F. Dunphy released his decision regarding the appeal of the Eyton decision. I won’t repeat the original decision here because I discussed it in detail in my above-noted blog.

Suffice to say that the basis of this litigation is that the Trustee disallowed the creditor’s filed proof of claim because the last payment made on the debt was in April 2016. The creditor did not take legal action against the debtor.

This made the claim now more than two years old before the date of bankruptcy. Therefore the Trustee said since the claim is statute-barred, it cannot be a debt to be proved in this bankruptcy.

Statute of limitations inForm 79 Ontario: When it is too late to sue?

As previously mentioned, the creditor appealed the Trustee’s decision to Master Mills and lost. Now the creditor was appealing the Master’s decision to the Judge.

The issue to be decided was when:

  • it is far too late to take legal action to try to collect on the debt;
  • the debtor has actually submitted either for a restructuring proposal or for bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA);
  • the debtor has actually included the amount of that creditor’s claim in the sworn Statement of Affairs; and
  • under the statute of limitations in Ontario, the financial debt is statute-barred yet is not extinguished,

can the creditor file a claim for that financial obligation in the insolvency proceeding?

statute of limitations in ontario
statute of limitations in ontario

Statute of limitations in Ontario and the Effect of Form 79 Statement of Affairs

The creditor’s first point in the appeal was that its debt was listed in the debtor’s sworn Statement of Affairs. Since the debtor recognized the debt, and the debt is not extinguished, then a proof of claim for the amount should be admitted by the Trustee.

The Judge did not think much of this argument. He stated that just because an amount is listed as a liability on the Statement of Affairs, each creditor is still required to prove their claim. The distinction is that a debtor may think that the debt is a provable claim, but a creditor still has to prove their claim. Stated another way, every claim is a potential claim until proven in accordance with the BIA.

In most restructuring proposals or bankruptcy administrations, the debtor’s listing of claims for at least the unsecured debt will never exactly match the final list of proven claims. That is just the way it is.

Can statutes of limitation barred claims be proved in bankruptcy?

As the BIA is federal law, then all provincial limitations laws in Canada are in play. Not just the two-year limitation period in the statute of limitations in Ontario. The creditor’s legal counsel advanced the following arguments regarding civil claims in bankruptcy:

  • The BIA does not define provable claims with any reference or qualification relating to any provincial applicable limitation periods.
  • The Supreme Court of Canada in Schreyer v. Schreyer, 2011 SCC 35 (CanLII), [2011] 2 SCR 605 decided that the meaning of the term provable claims in the BIA is that if the debt exists and can be liquidated and if the underlying obligation exists as of the date of bankruptcy and if no provincial exemption rule applies, the claim will be deemed to be provable.
  • The two-year limitation period in the statute of limitations in Ontario is procedural in nature because it does not extinguish the debt, it just says that a proceeding, such as the issuance of a statement of claim, cannot begin.
  • In one of the Ontario cases I mentioned in my earlier blog (Re: Temple), the Judge, in that case, found that a claim that was older than the basic limitation period in Ontario could be used as a debt owing for the purpose of launching a Bankruptcy Application seeking a Bankruptcy Order being made against a debtor.

The Judge was not persuaded by any of these arguments. He shot them down one by one. I can summarize all of his comments as follows. The purpose of the BIA is to have an equitable distribution of the bankrupt’s assets amongst the creditors, in the priority laid out in the BIA. The claims of all unsecured creditors are to be treated equally and each unsecured creditor is to receive their pro-rata share.

If a creditor who cannot enforce its claim in respect of payment can receive the same share as a creditor who still can enforce its claim for payment, then the claims of all unsecured creditors are not being treated equally.

So Judge Dunphy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (In Bankruptcy and Insolvency) dismissed the appeal. I have been told by the lawyer for the creditor who appealed the Master’s decision to the Judge that he does not feel he has a chance to win an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. So the law on claims barred by the statute of limitations in Ontario in an insolvency proceeding is now settled. Such a claim is not a claim provable and probably cannot even be used as the basis of a claim in a Bankruptcy Application.

statute of limitations in ontario
statute of limitations in ontario

What does this mean for proceedings and intended proceedings in Ontario?

As far as what this means for debt collectors trying to collect a claim in respect of any statute barred debt and for a debt collection agency, whether they are trying to collect on personal debts such as a credit card debt or on commercial debts, look at my previous blog where I discuss what it means for a debt collection agency.

As far as what it means for an insolvency process, there are several takeaways for me on this. First, whenever a creditor files a completed Form 31 proof of claim, there needs to be a schedule attached to the form that clearly shows how the debt is calculated. If there is not going to be any distribution to the unsecured creditors then there is no need to vet every claim to the nth degree.

However, where there will be a distribution to the unsecured creditors, then the Trustee is going to have to take great care in reviewing and vetting each claim. The Trustee will have to make a determination in each case if the claim is barred by the statute of limitations in Ontario or not. If there is insufficient detail in the schedule attached to the Form 31 proof of claim, the Trustee will have to go to each such creditor and get more details. I suspect there will be a whole lot more claims being disallowed than in the past.

Of course, each creditor whose claim has been disallowed by the Trustee because it is barred by the statute of limitations in Ontario has the right to appeal the Trustee’s decision to the Master sitting in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Bankruptcy and Insolvency).

Statute of limitations in Ontario: Get a personalized debt free plan today

I hope that you found this statute of limitations in Ontario Brandon Blog interesting. If you are concerned 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. 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. 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 to become debt free, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

statute of limitations in ontario
statute of limitations in ontario

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.

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY SURPLUS INCOME: OUR ESSENTIAL GUIDE 4 YOU

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

Bankruptcy surplus income introduction

I have written many blogs about personal bankruptcy and consumer proposal insolvency matters over the recent past. I notice though that it has been many years since I have written about bankruptcy surplus income. I refer to it in many of my Brandon’s Blogs but have not described it in detail in quite a while.

In order to correct that situation, here I discuss the concept and application of bankruptcy surplus income in personal bankruptcy filings.

What is bankruptcy surplus income?

Surplus income is perhaps an inadequately worded expression. Very few individuals would certainly really feel that they have surplus income, especially when dealing with financial debt. Nonetheless, in the bankruptcy context, surplus income describes a calculation that figures out just how much cash monthly an individual must be paying into their bankruptcy estate for the benefit of their creditors.

When you file for personal bankruptcy in Canada you are able to retain most of the income that you make monthly. In order to have a practical level of living during the bankruptcy period, the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada (OSB) establishes a net month-to-month earnings standard.

These earnings criteria take into consideration annual inflation and are derived from information collected by Statistics Canada annually. What you pay to your licensed insolvency trustee (Trustee) into your bankruptcy estate every month is determined by these standards. They are used to decide if a bankrupt has any bankruptcy surplus income.

I have to warn you though. The practical standard of living that the OSB permits is actually the Canadian poverty line. It matters not if you reside in one of Canada’s most pricey cities or in a rural area. There are no regional modifications made. The OSB lays out the meaning and calculation in its Directive No. 11R2. Every year the OSB updates the exemption limitations.

Click on this link for the up to date bankruptcy surplus income 2020 Directive No. 11R2-2020.

What happens to a person’s wages during bankruptcy?

You are still allowed to earn money and collect your wage or salary when you apply for bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). As a matter of fact, lots of people apply for bankruptcy because their wages, salary, or bank account are being garnisheed or frozen either by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) or a judgment creditor. As I have written in several Brandon’s Blogs, the filing of an assignment in bankruptcy knocks out the garnishee against your wages or salary and/or the freeze on your bank account.

Now that there is no longer a garnishee, your earnings on an after-tax basis are readily available to you. The Canadian bankruptcy process, which strives for fairness, states that your after-tax income is now available for contribution to bankruptcy surplus income. To provide you a feel for the personal exemptions permitted, on an after-tax basis, as established by the OSB, here is the 2020 table the Trustee needs to work off of:

Superintendent’s Standards – 2020

bankruptcy surplus income

How it works is that you look at the table and pick first how many persons are in your household. The next column marked “S” and “N”, is the exemption that the OSB standard that it gives your family. You can then do one of two things: (1) go across the top of the table that resembles the closest your household after-tax income (the household’s, not just yours); or (2) if you know the calculation, do the exact calculation.

bankruptcy surplus income
bankruptcy surplus income

Bankruptcy surplus income limits for 2020 Canada

To have bankruptcy surplus income payable, your after-tax regular monthly earnings need to be $200 or greater than the limit established by the OSB. The exact computation is to add the bankrupt’s after-tax monthly earnings to the bankrupt spouse’s after-tax month-to-month revenue, and the same for anyone else in the family that is contributing their income for household expenditures.

Take that sum and deduct your allowed exemption. Then subtract the reasonably few unique extra exemptions, if appropriate:

  1. medical expenses;
  2. support payments
  3. child care expenses
  4. court-imposed fines or penalties
  5. expenses as a condition of employment.

After that take the bankrupt’s percent of the complete household income bankruptcy surplus income which you just computed. Split that number in half which is the month-to-month surplus income that the bankrupt must pay.

So for example, take a look at the calculation below for an imaginary family of two where both spouses work and there are no extra special deductions:

Family Situation (Family unit of two)
Bankrupt’s available monthly income $2,800
Add: Other family unit member’s available monthly income 1,000
Family unit’s available monthly income$3,800
Minus: Superintendent’s standard for a family unit of two
2,793
Total monthly surplus income$1,007
Family Situation Adjustment
(2800 ÷ 3,800 = 73.68%
$1007 × 73.68% = $741.96)		$741.96
Payment required from bankrupt
($741.95 × 50% = $370.98)
$370.98

Bankruptcy surplus income calculator

To help you better understand everything that goes into the calculation, I want to share with you a tool I use to calculate bankruptcy surplus income. I am providing you with the link to the same spreadsheet that I use to do the calculation.

Here is the link:

Bankruptcy surplus income calculator

Your income is checked by the Trustee on a month-to-month basis and is balanced out over the entire period of your bankruptcy. If you have a short-term boost in earnings, such as from a bonus or commissions, or a short-term reduction, such as a temporary layoff, this will be factored in.

When do bankruptcy surplus income payments end?

For a 1st time bankrupt, without surplus income, you are entitled to get an automatic discharge after 9 months. This requires that neither the Trustee nor a creditor has opposed your bankruptcy discharge. If you are a 1st time bankrupt yet you do have surplus income, then you need to make monthly bankruptcy surplus income payments for 21 months. You are then entitled to an automatic discharge if all your surplus income payments are made and there is no opposition to your discharge.

If you have actually been bankrupt before and this is your 2nd (or more) bankruptcy, you will not have the ability to obtain a discharge in 9 months. Your bankruptcy will certainly be lengthened. A 2nd + bankruptcy lasts for a minimum of 24 months. If you have surplus income, a second-time bankrupt will certainly not have the capacity to obtain a bankruptcy discharge for 36 months. The monthly bankruptcy surplus income payments must be made for the very same 36 months.

Can I file bankruptcy if I make too much money?

The test to file for bankruptcy is not how much money do you make. The test is:

  • are you insolvent; and
  • have you committed one or more acts of bankruptcy within the six months preceding the filing of an assignment in bankruptcy or the launching of an application for a bankruptcy order.

But if you do make a lot of money, and go into bankruptcy, then no doubt you will have a large bankruptcy surplus income obligation to pay to the Trustee every month. That large amount may not fit into your monthly budget. You may not be able to afford that monthly bankruptcy surplus income payment.

So what can you do? You should speak to a Trustee about filing either a consumer proposal or a Division I Part III proposal. Both are filed under the BIA. Why? Depending on your assets, a proposal may work better for you. Although your proposal would have to be a better alternative for your creditors than your bankruptcy, it gives you the advantage of terming out the monthly payments.

It may work out that for a little more, you can get up to 60 months to pay. So rather than having only 24 or 36 months to make your total payment, as the case may be, you could get 60 months to pay only a bit more. Obviously, the proposal is more gentle on your budget than a bankruptcy. It is also easier on your credit score and credit report.

Bankruptcy surplus income summary – Are you in financial trouble?

To declare personal bankruptcy is a major life event. However, it is a necessary thing to rid yourself of crippling debt. Most people who declare bankruptcy have been faced with a major life event. The main examples are illness, pay cuts, job loss, or divorce. It is not your fault. I hope this bankruptcy surplus income Brandon’s Blog has given you helpful information.

Do you have too much debt? Are you in need of financial restructuring? The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur or the person who has too much personal debt.

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

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

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

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

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

bankruptcy surplus income canada

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY MEANS: SERIOUSLY, CAN IT EVER MEAN BEGGING FOR A BANKRUPTCY ANNULMENT?

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

Bankruptcy means introduction

From my perspective, bankruptcy means that a person or company has either filed an assignment in bankruptcy or the court has issued a bankruptcy order against the debtor. The debtor has taken the voluntary action to seek relief and the benefits obtained by doing so under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). Or a court, based on the application of one or more creditors, has ordered that the BIA applies and the debtor is adjudged bankrupt.

As I have written in the past, this is different from insolvency. Insolvency is the financial state where a company or person cannot meet their liabilities as they come due or whose assets, if sold at fair value, would not be enough to pay off all of the liabilities. Bankruptcy is a legal state.

I recently read an article about Mr. Stanley Frank Ostrowski aka Frank Ostrowski, who lives in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Mr. Ostrowski filed an assignment in bankruptcy on February 12, 2019. He listed his assets having a value of $250. He stated that his liabilities were $259,621. This is his second bankruptcy. His first was in 1983 and he received an absolute discharge in 1985.

The article states that Mr. Ostrowski has now made an application to the court to annul his bankruptcy. This Brandon’s Blog looks at: Is it possible to annul a bankruptcy and under what circumstances? Put another way, is it really the case that bankruptcy means you can file for bankruptcy and then say oops, I didn’t really want to file? I am not really sure that is how bankruptcies work.

The reasons why Mr. Ostrowski thinks bankruptcy means it can be annulled

In May 1987, a jury decided that Mr. Ostrowski was guilty of first-degree murder. In March 1992, he was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison, concurrent with his life sentence for murder.

He served 23 years, 2 months and 24 days in prison. He got out of jail on December 18, 2009. In 2014, then federal justice minister Peter MacKay asked Manitoba’s Court of Appeal to review the case. Then justice minister MacKay believed that there was a miscarriage of justice with respect to the murder conviction.

In a November 2018 decision, the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction after it discovered a miscarriage of justice took place when two vital details were not revealed to the defence or the court. While the court set aside his conviction, it did not acquit him. In their decision, the three-judge panel said they thought there was enough proof against the accused, which the court could have found him guilty even if full disclosure had been made.

The court also held that it would be unfair to have another trial given that it had been 32 years since the shooting. The court also entered a judicial finding that the charge is stayed from further prosecution.

In June 2020, Mr. Ostrowski retained legal counsel to commence an action for damages because of his wrongful conviction. His lawyers have not yet launched the claim but they plan to. The article said that he will be seeking $16 million in compensation.

Now he wants to have his 2019 bankruptcy annulled. He believes he has a realistic chance of receiving sufficient compensation to be able to settle all his debts. So with all this background information, do I think his bankruptcy means that he can get his bankruptcy annulled?

Bankruptcy means: what happens if I declare bankruptcy?

I have written before about what happens when a person or company declares bankruptcy. There is a responsibility to make full disclosure to the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee) all of your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. The debtor also must give to the Trustee all provincially non-exempt assets so that the Trustee can sell them for the benefit of the creditors.

In his bankruptcy filing documents, Mr. Ostrowski did not make mention of this potential lawsuit that had not yet been launched. He also did not indicate that he had the right to such an asset. If he had, there would be two realistic options.

He could have taken the position that the amount of recovery in a lawsuit not yet launched is unknown and speculative. So, the action should only be valued at $1 as a placeholder. By doing so, he would have made full disclosure to his creditors and to his Trustee as to the existence of this potential asset.

If Mr. Ostrowski had disclosed this asset and valued it at more than $259,371, then he would not have met the asset test for being insolvent and potentially would not have been able to file for bankruptcy. I say potentially because, in his affidavit, Mr. Ostrowski makes no mention of what his income and expenses were at the time of filing for bankruptcy or now. Mr. Ostrowski does not disclose in his affidavit whether or not he has to pay any surplus income to his Trustee for the benefit of his creditors.

Can bankruptcy be annulled?

Annulling a bankruptcy is more than just cancelling a bankruptcy. It is erasing it to the point as if it never happened. It is a complete elimination of the bankruptcy. If it was the person’s first bankruptcy, and it was annulled, they could honestly say they never were bankrupt.

To figure out what are the odds that Mr. Ostrowski will be successful in his application to annul his bankruptcy, we need to look at several factors. First, what reasons does Mr. Ostrowski say are the basis as to why his bankruptcy should be annulled?

In his affidavit sworn June 8, 2020, the reasons he gives are:

  1. “I have a realistic chance of receiving sufficient compensation to be able to settle my debts with my creditors in a manner that would be more advantageous to the creditors than if I pursue bankruptcy.”
  2. “I am advised by…” my lawyer “…that when he advised…” my Trustee, “… of my intention to seek an order annulling my assignment in bankruptcy…” my Trustee “…did not object to it.”.

That is it. No other reasons. To Mr. Ostrowski, his bankruptcy means that maybe perhaps he can do better for his creditors than they would get in his bankruptcy and his Trustee doesn’t object to his trying to annul his bankruptcy.

With all due respect to his legal counsel on this bankruptcy annulment application who only has what he has to work with, I rate those reasons somewhere between weak and lame! The bankruptcy annulment process was not designed for the convenience of the bankrupt.

Bankruptcy means when will a court annul a bankruptcy?

First, Section 181(1) of the BIA gives the court the authority to annul a bankruptcy. It says:

“181 (1) If, in the opinion of the court, a bankruptcy order ought not to have been made or an assignment ought not to have been filed, the court may by order annul the bankruptcy.”

This authority is discretionary. Generally, the court will only annul an assignment if it is shown that:

  • The debtor was not insolvent at the time of filing.
  • It was an abuse of process of the court
  • The debtor was trying to commit a fraud on his or her creditors.

If Mr. Ostrowski’s affidavit is the only evidence submitted in his application to annul his bankruptcy, he has not shown that the bankruptcy assignment “ought not to have been filed”.

Second, there have been cases where an assignment in bankruptcy has been annulled. The list of general reasons why the court found that a bankruptcy order ought not to have been made or an assignment ought not to have been filed are:

  1. An assignment in bankruptcy was completed and was to be held in escrow while the debtor negotiated with his creditors. The assignment was only to be filed if a resolution could not be worked out. A deal was reached but the assignment was filed in error. In other words, a verifiable mistake.
  2. The bankruptcy was of no benefit to the creditors. The creditors would receive a distribution but would bear all the costs of the bankruptcy administration.
  3. The debtor was restrained by court order from dealing with all of his assets without giving his estranged wife seven clear days’ notice and he filed an assignment in bankruptcy with no notice given.
  4. Joint assignment by a husband and wife where it was evident that a large amount of debt was from the husband’s unincorporated business and the wife was not in partnership with him.
  5. A bankruptcy assignment purportedly filed by an infant!
  6. The second assignment filed before the bankrupt received a discharge from the 1st bankruptcy.
  7. The husband filing an assignment in bankruptcy in an attempt to disgorge himself of his assets while embroiled in bitter family law proceedings.
  8. Directors of a company whose assets were already being administered under a court-appointed receiver having filed an assignment in bankruptcy for the company.

In all the above situations, the court DID annul the bankruptcy. The court did not agree that bankruptcy means it was the right choice in those situations.

Bankruptcy means when will a court NOT annul a bankruptcy?

Third, there have been cases where an assignment in bankruptcy was NOT annulled. The list of general reasons why the court found refusing the annulment request was appropriate are:

  1. The sole purpose of the bankruptcy was to rearrange the priorities of certain creditors.
  2. A bankruptcy to defeat the enforcement attempts of a judgment creditor.
  3. The sworn statement of affairs failed to show the name and amount of a creditor.
  4. The debtor had no assets.
  5. Debtor was insolvent and did not bring an application to annul the bankruptcy until 4 months after filing an assignment in bankruptcy. The court decided that an application to annul a bankruptcy only because the debtor did not wish to continue with the bankruptcy process should be brought immediately after the filing of the assignment in bankruptcy.

The last reason why the court did not annul a bankruptcy, is pretty much the reason Mr. Ostrowski says he wants his bankruptcy annulled. Only in his case, he is bringing the application some 18 months after becoming a bankrupt.

Interestingly enough, that last reason was a Manitoba case, Baker (Bankrupt), Re, 1997 CanLII 23100 (MB QB). In that case, the bankrupt contended that the Trustee filed the bankruptcy documents with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in error. However, she waited for 4 months and the court was not persuaded that the filing was an error!

In Mr. Ostrowski’s case, his reasons boil down to it will be more convenient for him! As you can probably tell by now, I don’t place a high probability of his chances of success in persuading the court to annul his bankruptcy. But then I am not the judge.

Bankruptcy means what should Mr. Ostrowski do?

The answer as to what his bankruptcy means and what Frank Ostrowski should do lies within the BIA. Mr. Ostrowski has two choices and I believe it will be what the court decides.

First, the BIA allows for a bankrupt, with the permission of the inspectors in his bankruptcy, if any, to file a restructuring proposal. He could get that started right now without any court application.

If his debts are truly over $250,000, based on the claims filed to date, then he can file a proposal under part III division I proposal under the BIA. If the claims filed are a total under $250,000, then he could file a consumer proposal. Either way, the administration would continue under the BIA.

His proposal would be a very simple one. It would essentially say that he has a claim against several parties for what his lawyer believes is $16 million. He knows he will get at least enough to pay all of his creditors in full. So, if you vote in favour of my proposal, if I win, enough money will be paid to the Trustee to pay all the creditors in full. If I don’t win, or there isn’t enough money to pay everyone in full, all creditors will share in whatever is available.

Once the restructuring proposal is accepted by his creditors and approved by the court, his bankruptcy is annulled. He will get exactly what he is asking for. His creditors will get paid presumably in full. They will not just get the chance to have their debts settled as Mr. Ostrowski states in his affidavit.

Second, section 144 of the BIA says that the bankrupt is entitled to any surplus remaining after payment of all creditor claims in full, with interest, and the cost of the bankruptcy administration. So, if Mr. Ostrowski is successful and gets $16 million, that money would go to his Trustee, after the legal costs of winning that award. The Trustee would keep what is necessary to pay all the claims in full, with interest, and the costs of the bankruptcy administration. Mr. Ostrowski would keep the rest.

I recommend the first way, the restructuring proposal route because that could get Mr. Ostrowski’s bankruptcy annulled fairly quickly, which is what he is asking for.

It will be interesting to see what the court decides. I will let you know when I find out.

Bankruptcy means summary

I hope you found this bankruptcy means Brandon’s Blog informative and interesting.

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

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

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

Income, revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs, their companies and individual Canadians. This is especially true these days. Some people think that bankruptcy means the end of their life. Bankruptcy should be a last resort for anyone. We strive to help people and companies avoid bankruptcy. But if bankruptcy is necessary, do not think of it as the end of life. It really is a fresh new beginning. That is what bankruptcy means.

If anyone needs our assistance for debt relief Canada COVID-19, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

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

bankruptcy means
bankruptcy means
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

3 TYPES OF BANKRUPTCIES: DO WE REALLY NEED IT?

3 Types of bankruptcies introduction

Two weeks ago I described the personal bankruptcy process Canada. Last week I described the Canadian corporate bankruptcy process. This week I want to start talking about the 3 types of bankruptcies in Canada.

3 types of bankruptcies: Voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy

In the last two weeks, I talked about both the personal and corporate bankruptcy processes. The way I described the bankruptcies it was all about the voluntary process of entering bankruptcy by filing an assignment in bankruptcy. That’s the 1st type of bankruptcy out of the 3 types of bankruptcies.

The second type which I will be speaking about today is the involuntary process of being pushed into bankruptcy. So how does one get placed into bankruptcy on an involuntary basis? It’s by a bankruptcy application.

3 types of bankruptcies: The bankruptcy application – the involuntary method

In order to file a bankruptcy application, one or more creditors must file the application to place the debtor, corporate or personal into bankruptcy. The creditor or group of creditors

must have unsecured debt of at least $1000 and the debtor must have committed at least 1 act of bankruptcy in the six months preceding the date of the bankruptcy application the acts of bankruptcy are laid out in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).

3 types of bankruptcies: Acts of bankruptcy

So what are they? A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases:

  • If in Canada or elsewhere the debtor makes an assignment of its property to a trustee for the benefit of its creditors.
  • A debtor makes a fraudulent gift delivery or transfer of all or part of its property.
  • The debtor makes any transfer of its property or any part of it that creates a charge on it that would be void as against a trustee and bankruptcy.
  • If with the intent to defeat or delay creditors the debtor departs out of Canada and absence itself.
  • If the debtor permits any execution or another process to be levied against it where it’s property is seized in order to be sold and the debtor does not redeem its property.
  • If the debtor exhibits to any meeting of creditors a statement of assets and liabilities that shows the debtor is insolvent if the debtor removes disposes of property or attempts to do so intending to defraud defeat or delay creditors.
  • If the debtor gives notice to any creditor that payments are being suspended or if the debtor ceases to meet its liabilities generally as they become do a bankruptcy application must be accompanied by an affidavit attesting to the debt and the alleged acts of bankruptcy3 types of bankruptcies

3 types of bankruptcies: What a bankruptcy application must look like

The affidavit must be deposed by a creditor or a representative of a creditor especially a corporate creditor and that representative must have personal knowledge of the facts. The bankruptcy application must be filed with the court having jurisdiction based on the location of the debtor. A bankruptcy application cannot be withdrawn without the permission of the court.

If there is a concern that the debtor’s assets might dissipate between the date of filing the bankruptcy application and the date of the court hearing the application the court can appoint the proposed licensed insolvency trustee to preserve and protect the assets but not too otherwise interfere in the running of the debtor’s business.

A notice of the time and place of the court hearing and all the motion material being used by the creditor or group of creditors must be served on the debtor.

3 types of bankruptcies: The bankruptcy order

A bankruptcy order could be issued 10 days after the service on the debtor of the bankruptcy application if it is not opposed or otherwise defended by the debtor. If it is defended then there will have to be a trial for the court to determine if a bankruptcy order should be issued and whatever the court decides. It is, of course, subject to the parties’ rights of appeal.

The debtor is bankrupt once the bankruptcy order is issued. The bankruptcy order puts on hold the enforcement rights of the creditors except for secured creditors holding valid security as soon as a bankruptcy order has been made the debtor’s property vests in the bankruptcy trustee and the bankruptcy administration begins.

To refresh yourself about personal bankruptcy administration check out my blog from two weeks ago. For a review again of the administration of a corporate bankruptcy check out my blog from last week.

Now the title of this blog is three types of bankruptcy. In the last two weeks, I have described voluntary bankruptcy for both an individual and a corporation by the filing of an assignment of bankruptcy. This week I talked about the involuntary bankruptcy process of the bankruptcy application for a bankruptcy order.

Next week I will discuss the third out of the 3 types of bankruptcies in Canada.

3 types of bankruptcies summary

I hope you enjoyed this 3 types of bankruptcies blog. The Ira Smith team is available to help you at any time.

We offer sound advice and a solid plan for Starting Over Starting Now so that you’ll be well on your way to a debt-free life in no time. For more information on a no-cost basis please visit our website or call us.

Do you or your company have excessive debt and looking for debt restructuring? Would not it be great if you could do a turn-around?

The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a debt restructuring. More notably, we comprehend the requirements of the business owner or the person who has too much individual debt. Because you are dealing with these stressful financial issues, you are anxious.

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

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

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

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will get you or your business back on the roadway to healthy and balanced worry-free operations and end the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.3 types of bankruptcies

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

INSOLVENT MEANING RESTORED IN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

insolvent meaning

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Insolvent Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast

Introduction

On November 28, 2018, I published my Brandon’s Blog titled “INSOLVENT DEFINITION: A NEW FOCUS FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE”. I wrote about a then recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Kormos v. Fast, 2018 ONSC 6044 (CanLII). In that decision, the Judge gave a new twist on deciding whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Fast was insolvent.

If they were found to not be insolvent, their respective consumer proposal and bankruptcy filings would be annulled. In that event, Mr. and Mrs. Kormos would be able to continue enforcing their judgement against Mr. and Mrs. Fast. If unsuccessful in annulling the filings, then their only remedy would be to file a proof of claim in each insolvency proceeding. That would result in a payment far less than what might otherwise be available.

The lower court ruling

Mr. and Mrs. Kormos submitted evidence that the Fast’s assets had a value greater than their total liabilities. They submitted that therefore, Mr. and Mrs. Fast was not insolvent and should not have been able to file under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

The evidence submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kormos was not challenged. However, the Judge seized upon the fact that the income and expense statement of each of Mr. and Mrs. Fast indicated that on a monthly basis, their income was much less than their expenses. The Judge, therefore, concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Fast was insolvent and their separate insolvency filings should not be annulled. Accordingly, he dismissed the application by Mr. and Mrs. Kormos.

The appeal

Mr. and Mrs. Kormos did not believe that this ruling was either fair or appropriate. Therefore, they appealed the Judge’s decision with respect to Mrs. Fast only to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. On May 23, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its unanimous decision in Kormos v. Fast, 2019 ONCA 430.

The position of Mr. and Mrs. Kormos was that the Judge erred in dismissing their application by not annulling Mrs. Fast’s assignment in bankruptcy and not deciding that her filing was a misuse of the bankruptcy procedure. They further submitted that therefore, the Judge legitimized an unjustified technique to protect the equity in Mrs. Fast’s home.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. and Mrs. Kormos. They stated that the lower court erred in failing to decide that Mrs. Fast was not an insolvent person. It is for that reason, it was not necessary for the Court of Appeal to decide if her filing was a misuse of the bankruptcy scheme and procedure.

The Court of Appeal Judges determined that on the day of her bankruptcy, Mrs. Fast was not an “insolvent person” as that term is specified under s. 2 of the BIA. Her assets substantially went beyond and were readily available to pay off all of her liabilities.

Apart from the unexplained regular monthly cash deficiency, there was no proof that she could not satisfy or had actually stopped paying her liabilities as they normally came due. Instead, the undisputed proof was that she could. The only single item submitted as proof of any kind of financial hardship was that Mrs. Fast had not paid the debt owed to Mr. and Mrs. Kormos under their judgement.

The Court’s power for bankruptcy annullment

Under s. 181(1) of the BIA, a court might annul a bankruptcy order if it feels that it ought not to have actually been made. An annulment will be approved where it is revealed either:

  1. the bankrupt was not an insolvent individual when he or she made the assignment in bankruptcy, or
  2. the bankrupt abused the procedure of the court or performed a fraud on his or her creditors.

What is an insolvent person?

Section 2 of the BIA specifies an “insolvent person” as:

“insolvent person means a person who is not bankrupt and who resides, carries on business or has property in Canada, whose liabilities to creditors provable as claims under this Act amount to one thousand dollars, and

(a) who is for any reason unable to meet his obligations as they generally become due,

(b) who has ceased paying his current obligations in the ordinary course of business as they generally become due, or

(c) the aggregate of whose property is not, at a fair valuation, sufficient, or, if disposed of at a fairly conducted sale under legal process, would not be sufficient to enable payment of all his obligations, due and accruing due;”

Mrs. Fast plainly did not meet any of the requirements to be considered insolvent. The lower court erred by ignoring Mrs. Fast’s capacity to satisfy her liabilities and her accessibility to considerable assets.

On the day of her bankruptcy, Mrs. Fast’s real value of her assets over her liabilities, including her share in the value of the real estate, was $417,581.24. The debt owing to Mr. and Mrs. Kormos under their judgement was $25,565.64 plus interest. Therefore, she definitely was not insolvent.

Out and out lies

Mrs. Fast was motivated to take the actions she did because Mr. and Mrs. Kormos was beginning to execute on their judgement and there was real value in the real estate to eventually get paid from. So, Mrs. Fast lied on her sworn statement of affairs she completed with her licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (LIT). She also manufactured an income and expense statement to show that on a cash basis, she suffered a monthly loss.

It is obvious that first, her LIT did insufficient work to establish the bona fides of the values Mrs. Fast used in her bankruptcy filing. Second, the lower court Judge ignored what should have been obvious. Mrs. Fast should not have been allowed to file an assignment in bankruptcy. At least now we are back to the tried and true definition of an insolvent person with clarity from the Ontario appellate court.

The Court of Appeal ordered the annulment of Mrs. Fast’s bankruptcy. They also awarded costs to Mr. and Mrs. Kormos on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $2,000, including disbursements and HST.

Are you insolvent?

Are you unable to pay your debts as they come due? Are your bills past due and you don’t know how you are going to pay them? Is the true value of your assets less than what you owe to your creditors? If so, then you are insolvent, and we can help end your pain and anxiety.

A LIT is the only insolvency expert accredited, licensed and supervised by the federal government to handle debt restructuring. As a LIT, our personalized strategy will assist you to know all your alternatives. The alternative you choose based on our recommendations will take away the stress and pain you are feeling because of your debt problems.

Nobody wants to visit a bankruptcy trustee. However, the Ira Smith Team has decades and generations of experience people and companies in financial trouble. We will treat you with the respect and dignity that you deserve. Whether it is a consumer proposal debt settlement plan, a larger personal or corporate restructuring proposal debt settlement plan, or as a last resort, bankruptcy, we have the experience.

Our approach for each file is to create a result where Starting Over, Starting Now takes place. This starts the minute you are at our front 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, Starting Over, Starting Now.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

THE HONEST TO GOODNESS TRUTH ON BANKRUPTING A CORPORATION

bankrupting a corporation

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast

Bankrupting a corporation: Introduction

I have blogged on personal and corporate insolvency matters for just over 6 years now. I have covered many topics. During a recent corporate bankruptcy consultation, I realized that I have never written about what the steps are for bankrupting a corporation. An important issue arising from this topic would be what the Directors of a corporation going into bankruptcy should know.

There are 3 ways for a company to be bankrupt

Like in all bankruptcy matters, there are three methods that result in bankrupting a corporation in Canada. The first way is being pushed, and the second way is jumping in with both feet voluntarily (I know, corporations don’t have feet!). The third way is to have the company’s creditors vote down a corporation’s attempt to restructure under a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). In this Brandon’s Blog, I will focus on describing the first two methods.

Bankruptcy application – an involuntary bankruptcy

Being pushed means that one or more unsecured creditors, owed in total at least $1,000, has made a motion before the Court asking that a Bankruptcy Order be made against the company. The motion is called a Bankruptcy Application.

In order to do so, the unsecured creditor(s) have to:

There are various acts of bankruptcy listed in Section 42(1) of the BIA. Commonly seen acts of bankruptcy are fraudulent transfers of property, allowing a lawful seizure of some or all of their property by a creditor under a lawful process, and the catch-all ceasing to meet many liabilities as they come due.

Jumping in with both feet – a voluntary bankruptcy

By this term, I mean filing an Assignment in Bankruptcy. In this case, rather than someone going to Court, the Directors call a Directors’ meeting. At the meeting, the Directors resolve that the company is experiencing financial difficulty and cannot continue to run. The Directors also reserve that the company should file an assignment in bankruptcy and it gives authority to one Director to sign all the necessary documents.

The Director who has the authority to sign the bankruptcy documents is called the Designated Officer. Before the documents are ready for signing, the Trustee who is selected must get enough information to prepare the documentation.

Whether bankrupting a corporation in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada and regardless if it is a result of a Bankruptcy Order or an Assignment in Bankruptcy, the information the Trustee requires is the same.

Information and documents a Trustee needs

The Trustee requires a great deal of information before being able to properly administer a voluntary or involuntary corporate bankruptcy. Sometimes company officials can provide it and in other cases, the Trustee has to dig through the books and records of the company.

Here is the lengthy list of what is needed:

  • Exact corporate name and address of head office, details of any other locations, copy of any premises leases.
  • Minute book and corporate seal.
  • Bankruptcy Order or the resolution of the Directors.
  • Full description of the nature of the business.
  • Names of Officers and Directors and their addresses.
  • Date of incorporation of the company.
  • The date the company ceased operations, if prior to the date of bankruptcy.
  • The greatest number of employees employed in the last 12 months.
  • All employees – listing of names, addresses, social insurance number, amounts owing for each of severance, termination, wages, vacation pay, commissions and expenses.
  • Employee T4’s & ROE’s for current year employees (employer should issue to all employees for the year of bankruptcy and earlier if unissued).
  • Creditors’ listing (accounts payable) – details consisting of name, address, account number(s), and respective amounts owing classified as follows:
    • Secured – banks, leasing company, source deductions, etc.
    • Preferred – wages owing, rent to landlords, government remittances outstanding:
    • Workers Compensation Board, if applicable.
    • Municipal authorities: e.g. business taxes and realty taxes.
    • Employer’s health tax.
    • Unsecured – trade suppliers; Hydro; Bell Canada (quote telephone number(s); gas, etc.
    • Details of any unsecured private party loans, shareholder loans or advances due to the company.
  • Details of any unions, if applicable, including name, address, account number.
  • Details of contingent liabilities and pending legal action, if any.
  • Accounts receivable – aged trial balance and detailed backup documentation (invoices, delivery slips, purchase orders, etc.) to support collection efforts. From the aged trial balance, classify the accounts as good, doubtful, bad to equal the total balance.
  • Inventory – detailed information on inventory cost and the company’s assessment of estimated realizable values.
  • Machinery, equipment and plant – detailed listing providing original cost, if possible and estimated realizable value.
  • Office furniture & fixtures – detailed listing providing original cost, if possible and estimated realizable value.
  • Real estate – all details of real estate owned, including deeds, legal descriptions, original costs, appraisals (if any), an estimated fair market value.
  • Vehicles – provide descriptions including year, model, VIN, kilometres, original costs and estimated realizable value. Note if any vehicles are leased/financed and provide copies of the lease/finance documentation.
  • Other assets – details of other assets such as prepaid expenses, deposits, goodwill, intangibles, shares or any investments, patents, trademarks.
  • Bank accounts – details of all bank accounts, including name, address, account number and approximate balance in the accounts.
  • Last 12 months of accounting records, bank statements and cancelled cheques (for all accounts maintained).
  • Financial statements – most recent.
  • Corporate solicitor – name and address.
  • Listing of leased equipment (copy of leases) – vehicles, office and any other equipment.
  • Insurance policy(ies).
  • A brief narrative of management’s opinion as to cause(s) of insolvency.
  • Disclosure of any sale or disposition of assets, outside of the ordinary course of business, in the last year.

The Trustee’s job

In a corporate bankruptcy, the Trustee, with certain exceptions, takes possession of the assets of the company. If the Trustee is aware that there are deemed trust claims against the assets, or there is a secured creditor, like a Chartered Bank, the Trustee must be careful. If there are, the Trustee should have already had a conversation with those parties prior to the bankruptcy, to decide what rights, if any, the Trustee may have against such property.

Assuming there are assets not subject to the valid claim of third parties, the Trustee must at least:

  1. Establish whether the value of the assets will be enhanced if the Trustee operates the company’s business.
  2. Take into account what obstacles exist in running the business and how to reduce risk if it is beneficial or necessary to run the business.
  3. Decide what are the very best means to sell the properties? En bloc as one parcel or individually or at least several parcels?
  4. Determine if there are any 3rd party owned assets on the company’s premises?
  5. Identify if there are any company assets on the property of 3rd parties?
  6. Prepare the required reporting to Service Canada so that the former employees will be able to make their Wage Earner Protection Plan Act claims.
  7. See if there are proper insurance coverage and proper physical security over the assets?
  8. Identify any inventory been delivered in the 30 days prior to the date of bankruptcy? What rights of revindication might exist?
  9. Circularize the creditors requesting claims to be filed to understand what the depth and breadth of claims against the company are. This way, the Trustee can formulate a distribution to creditors, in priority, with the net funds available from the sale of assets.

What the Directors should be concerned about

Directors should have two concerns when contemplating bankrupting a corporation. First, they should be concerned about any decisions they have made or senior management actions they have ratified.

For example, Sears in the United States recently lodged a claim versus its previous CEO Eddie Lampert and a string of its top-level previous Directors. This includes Eddie Lampert’s previous Yale roomie Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The allegation is that the Directors condoned and approved Eddie Lampert’s actions for presumably swiping billions of dollars from the once-storied merchant.

Second, there are various types of claims against the corporation that are also personal claims against Directors. The list includes Director liability for unpaid:

  • Wages
  • HST
  • Source deductions
  • Certain environmental offences
  • Cybersecurity risks

In general, there is a relatively short list of things Directors can be personally liable for. In many cases, there will be Director and Officer Insurance to be relied upon. Directors may also have a due diligence defence.

A Director resigning their position will not protect them against any liability that would be a personal Director liability prior to their resignation.

Are you a Corporate Director?

Are you a Director of a corporation that has too much debt? Is your company’s capital insufficient to fulfill every one of its economic responsibilities and may be insolvent? Are you worried that your firm’s major secured lender will soon pull its financing completely and demand repayment in full which the company will not be able to do?

If you responded yes to any of these questions, call the Ira Smith Team today so we can kill off the stress and anxiety that these financial troubles have activated. We will create a strategy for the Directors unique for your company’s problems so that it can avoid bankruptcy and become profitable and continue to employ many people.

Call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience restructuring and turning around companies seeking financial restructuring or a debt negotiation strategy. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only specialists recognized, certified and monitored by the federal government to offer insolvency guidance to save businesses.

You can have a no-cost assessment so we can fix your company’s debt problems. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will absolutely allow you to return to being efficient, healthy and balanced, Starting Over Starting Now.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TORONTO REAL ESTATE: REAL ESTATE NEWS ON BUYER’S REMORSE

assignment in bankruptcyToToronto real estate: Introduction

This Brandon’s Blog is about Toronto real estate and what happens when the purchaser experiences buyer’s remorse. “When the residential real estate market is a rising market, most people – perhaps with the exception of first-time buyers, are happy homeowners and investors. When the market turns and drops, it is not for the faint of heart.” This is how Justice M.L. Edwards begins his Reasons for Decision in Gamoff v. Hu, 2018 ONSC 2172 (CanLII).

The realities of this situation show how one family came to be involved in a bidding process. Determined to get their dream house, they exhausted their ability to fund the acquisition of that residence. We will describe this case which is similar to several people my Firm has helped overcome their financial problems after being found liable for similar amounts the defendants, in this case, were found responsible for.

Toronto real estate: The Toronto real estate market news facts

Douglas and Sheila Gamoff (the “Gamoffs” or the “plaintiffs”) were the owners of a residential property. The home was in Stouffville, Ontario (the “Home”), part of the GTA. The plaintiffs listed the Home for sale on the multiple listing service on March 29, 2017. Within a fairly short amount of time (March 29, 2017, to April 2, 2017), there were 18 offers.

The defendants, Yixing Hu and David Lea, saw the Home with their real estate agent on April 1, 2017. They state that they told their real estate agent that they had an interest in acquiring the Home. They also didn’t want to be involved in a bidding price battle.

The defendants originally submitted their written offer on April 1, 2017, with an offer of $2,050,000. On April 2, 2017, the defendants were told by their real estate agent that there were several deals for the residential property. Their realtor also told them that their offer of $2,050,000 was not accepted. In spite of having informed their real estate agent that they did not intend to end up being in a bidding war, they inevitably submitted a new offer for $2,250,000. The vendors accepted the revised offer.

The deal had no conditions. The agreement of purchase and sale read that the purchasers provided a deposit in the amount of $30,000 upon acceptance of the offer. It further read that a second down payment tranche of $90,000 would be made on April 6, 2017. The date for the second deposit payment was then amended to April 10, 2017. The closing day for the acquisition of the Home was August 30, 2017.

Toronto real estate: It did not take long for buyer’s remorse to arise

On the same day, the defendants called their real estate agent. They suggested to him that they thought that they had actually paid way too much for the Home. Their issue here was no doubt created by the fact that they had just found out that, a mix of their mortgage loan funding and the value of their house yet to be sold, would not be enough for them to get the essential funding to close on their purchase.

David Lea emailed his real estate agent stating to him that he and Ms. Hu had actually slipped up aiming to acquire the Home. Mr. Lea went on to say in this email that he is begging, please contact the vendor’s agent with a new firm offer.

As I previously stated, the agreement of purchase and sale did not have any conditions in it to allow them to end the agreement and get back their first tranche deposit. The agreement certainly was not conditional either on their obtaining satisfactory mortgage financing or the sale of their existing home. That is enough stress to cause anyone to panic which no doubt led to their buyer’s remorse.

Toronto real estate: The purchaser’s default

On April 10, 2017, the purchaser failed to pay the 2nd payment needed by the change to the agreement of purchase and sale. On the following day, the defendants visited the property. They informed the plaintiffs face to face that they did not actually have the funding needed to complete the purchase.

Toronto real estate: The vendors’ mitigation

The Gamoffs first consulted with their lawyer. Then on May 1, 2017, they listed the Home for sale again on the multiple listing service for $2,250,000. From May 1 to May 16, 2017, the plaintiffs got no offers on the Home.

The Gamoffs lowered the listing price of the Home to $1,998,000 on May 17, 2017. This was because of a recommendation from their real estate agent. In between May 17, 2017, and June 6, 2017, they obtained no deals on the Home.

On July 28, 2017, the Gamoffs, based on the further advice of their realtor, lowered the price of the Home again to $1,798,000.

In between June 6 and July 26, 2017, the Gamoffs got no offers on the Home. On July 31, 2017, they got an offer to purchase the Home for $1,700,000. After some back and forth, on August 9, 2017, the Gamoffs accepted a brand new agreement of purchase and sale. It was with an arm’s length buyer for $1,770,000. That deal closed on October 3, 2017.

Toronto real estate: The Court’s decision

The plaintiffs sought a summary judgment for the difference between the defendants’ offer of $2,250,000 and what the Home eventually sold for, $1,770,000. The defendants opposed this on several grounds, including, that there was an issue that required a full trial.

Based on the evidence, the judge disagreed. He awarded the plaintiffs the difference between the defendants’ offer of $2,250,000 and what the Home eventually sold for. The judge also awarded costs to the plaintiffs. The judgment was for $470,000 plus costs. Add that to the $30,000 down payment the defendants lost, this aborted deal cost them half a million bucks!

Toronto real estate: Our own case studies

My Firm has been involved in several matters helping people who have had judgments like the one described above made against them from failed real estate deals. We have been involved as a result of failed real estate deal judgments in:

  1. a bankruptcy caused by the plaintiffs (the vendors) who could not yet collect on their judgment filing a Bankruptcy Application with the Court and obtaining a Bankruptcy Order be made against the defendants;
  2. a consumer proposal for a defendant which was successfully completed;
  3. the successful proposal of the defendant who had a large amount awarded against him by the judgment; and
  4. an assignment in bankruptcy filed by the defendant who did not have the ability to attempt a proposal to get relief from the judgment against them.

In each case, the only way that the defendants could get relief, voluntarily or involuntarily, was through an insolvency process. In the one case caused by the Bankruptcy Order, it was the plaintiff who took action. The plaintiff was able to get a payment for all the unsecured creditors. The insolvency process requires that the distribution is shared among all creditors. That result was better than the plaintiff not being able to collect on its judgment without the insolvency process.

In that specific case, it was a combination of the Trustee’s powers and the plaintiff’s judgment and specific knowledge, that joined to produce the recovery for all creditors. The Trustee’s powers were required to get enough leverage resulting in the recovery.

Toronto real estate: A tough lesson to learn


The effect of this Court’s decision will definitely have a significant result on the defendants. The judge said that he had every compassion for them.

With the adjustments in the realty market in the Greater Toronto Area, I have every reason to believe that there will be extra instances where buyers discover that they have not protected themselves and will not be able to complete their real estate transaction.

Buyers would certainly be well advised to think about making their deals to acquire real estate subject to satisfactory funding, as well as for the sale of their existing residence if they have one. The cost of entering a bidding war and getting the property unconditionally could turn out to be a very expensive one just like in this case.

Toronto real estate: What to do if you have too much debt

If you have too much debt because of a judgment against you, either because you have made the real estate in Toronto news from a failed real estate deal or for any other reason, there is no shame in looking for a professional to help you out of your financial jam. A licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) will look at your circumstances and assist you to get to the very best option for your issues. The Ira Smith Team will give you a free consultation.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is right here to help. We’re government supervised and adhere to a rigorous code of ethics. Our experienced team provides a high-quality service which will create a unique and an affordable solution made just for you. I feel your pain and know how to end it.

Don’t wait until we read about you in the real estate in Toronto news Canada. Call us today to end your stress and experience our pleasant, non-judgmental technique to solve your financial problems and get you back on the right track to stress-free living, Starting Over, Starting Now.toronto real estate

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

ONTARIO BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE: CANADIAN BANKRUPTCY LAW

320efcd005100f3ee3522fefba70f917 1

Ontario bankruptcy discharge certificate: Introduction

I have written before on the more practical aspects of Ontario bankruptcy discharge certificate issues and process within Canadian bankruptcy and insolvency law. The most recent blogs are:

  1. BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE: THE TOP 8 THINGS THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WILL CONSIDER ON ANYONE’S BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE APPLICATION – September 13, 2017
  2. GAMBLING DEBT BANKRUPTCY: CAN GAMBLING DEBT BE DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY? – January 31, 2018

I recently reviewed the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Cole v. RBC Dominion Securities Inc., 2017 ONCA 1009. This case is very interesting as it highlights an issue that we often don’t talk enough about when advising a person on what they might expect at their hearing under Canadian bankruptcy and insolvency law.

The facts

Henry Cole, age 52, had a Bankruptcy Order made against him in 2011 upon motion by Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), after he misappropriated $5 million from clients while working as their investment advisor. While in bankruptcy, he had a net monthly income of $14,600, resulting in surplus monthly income of $12,500. He nevertheless failed to make any surplus income payments.

To understand what surplus income in a bankruptcy is, see my June 1, 2016 vlog titled WHY SURPLUS INCOME IS SO POPULAR UNTIL YOU ARE FORCED INTO BANKRUPTCY.

The Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) upheld the two lower Court decisions

As is the case in bankruptcy matters, Mr. Cole’s bankruptcy discharge hearing came before the Master in Bankruptcy Court who also sits as the registrar in bankruptcy. Mr. Cole appealed the Master’s decision (discussed below) unsuccessfully to a Judge of the Bankruptcy Court. The Judge dismissed Mr. Cole’s appeal, thereby upholding the Master’s decision. As indicated above, the ONCA agreed with the Judge (and the Master) in dismissing Mr. Cole’s appeal.

Now for the interesting stuff!

Now for the interesting stuff. The Master determined that there was enough evidence to show that Mr. Cole, as a bankrupt, committed various bankruptcy offenses. The Master determined facts for which discharge may be refused, suspended or granted conditionally, under Section 173(1) of the Canadian bankruptcy and insolvency law called the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (“BIA”).

The Master determined that Mr. Cole had failed to provide information to enable the Licensed Insolvency Trustee to calculate surplus income. Mr. Cole also conceded to the following facts:

  1. his assets upon bankruptcy were not of a value equal to fifty cents on the dollar on the amount of his unsecured liabilities. Mr. Cole gave no evidence why he should not be held responsible;
  2. he failed to account satisfactorily for any loss of assets or for any deficiency of assets to meet his liabilities; and
  3. he brought on, or contributed to, his bankruptcy by rash and hazardous speculations, by unjustifiable extravagance in living, by gambling or by culpable neglect of his business affairs

With these findings, the Master, under Section 172(2) of the BIA, had to not grant an absolute discharge and to:

  1. refuse the discharge of a bankrupt;
  2. suspend the discharge for such period as the court thinks proper; or
  3. make the bankrupt, as a condition of his discharge, to do such acts, pay such moneys, consent to such judgments or comply with such other terms as the court may direct.

I must point out that the options available to the Master are not mutually exclusive. So, just like in Mr. Cole’s case, you could have the Court come up with a mixture of a suspension and a condition to pay moneys.

What the Master decided

The Master made several decisions. First, the Master dealt with the surplus income issue. The Master ordered Mr. Cole to pay $284,346 to the Trustee as surplus income, payable at a rate of $5,000 per month.

The Master also considered Mr. Cole’s criminal behaviour and that he had real income while not working any longer as an investment advisor. Given the amount of Mr. Cole’s liabilities, and for the integrity of the Canadian bankruptcy system, the Master ordered as further conditions that:

  1. Mr. Cole pay an extra $5,000 per month to the Trustee for a further six years for a total more payment of $360,000; and that
  2. his discharge from bankruptcy be suspended for two years.

The dismissed appeals

Mr. Cole argued before first the Judge, and then the ONCA, primarily that the Master’s treatment of surplus and other income was in error. He also argued that the Judge’s finding in dismissing his appeal was an error. The ONCA disagreed and dismissed his appeal.

ontario bankruptcy

So what is the lesson to be learned?

It is important for the Trustee, when sitting down with the person contemplating an insolvency proceeding, to understand all the facts. By properly understanding all the facts, we can provide proper professional advice and guidance.

Someone who had a facts situation like Mr. Cole, we would have strongly advised him or her to avoid bankruptcy and to contemplate performing a Division I Proposal to compromise his debts. The reasons we would have advised this are:

  1. the debtor has real income to successfully do a Proposal;
  2. Mr. Cole never would have qualified for an absolute discharge from bankruptcy given his facts situation and any discharge conditions would be onerous;
  3. avoiding the ongoing calculation of surplus income up to the time of his bankruptcy discharge hearing; and
  4. with the support of his major creditors, it is possible that the Proposal amount could have been somewhat less than $644,000 (subject to knowing the value of his assets at the date of bankruptcy).

he person needs our advice in plain English before making any decisions

We also would have advised the debtor the type of the rough ride they were in for if they chose to go ahead with the bankruptcy option. We would have explained in detail how we believed the Canadian bankruptcy and insolvency law system would treat him, so at least there would be no surprises during the bankruptcy administration.

Many times people we speak with do not like to hear the truth, and begin “Trustee shopping” until they find a Trustee that does not tell them all the bad news up front. People like this believe that if they aren’t told it, it can’t happen. This is a mistake. We believe everyone deserves to know the truth about their situation, to help them make the best decision possible.

In Mr. Cole’s case, not only did he find out the hard truth from the Court, he then spent money on his lawyers appealing the Master’s and Judge’s decisions. That obviously was extra money spent with no benefit received.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Our firm has never met with Mr. Cole and was not considered to be his Trustee.

What to do if you have too much debt

Declaring personal bаnkruрtсу in Canada is a big deal. So is getting your Ontario bankruptcy discharge certificate. While it can be a way out for the honest but unfortunate debtor who is deep in debt and looking for a new start, there are rules, rеѕtrісtіоnѕ and fіnаnсіаl rаmіfісаtіоnѕ.

That is why the Ira Smith Team always looks first to see if one of the bankruptcy alternatives would be a better fit for you. The alternatives we look at with you include:

The Ira Smith Team has 50+ years of cumulative experience dealing with issues just like the ones that you’re facing. Give us a call today and let us give you back peace of mind Starting Over, Starting Now.

ISI 4
ontario bankruptcy discharge certificate
Call a Trustee Now!