Ontario Civil

Bankruptcy and Insolvency

Nothing supported assertion that receivership order would jeopardize ongoing business

Creditor was financial institution. Debtors were four related corporate debtors and two married individual debtors. Two corporate debtors opened corporate operating accounts with creditor. Accounts went into overdraft in amount of approximately $2.15 million when certain electronic fund transfers were reversed. Creditor demanded repayment, but debtors were not able to repay. Creditor accepted various receivables and mortgage over individual debtors’ home as security. Debtors only paid $352,715.10 by deadline. Creditor brought motion for appointment of receiver over corporate debtors’ receivables and individual debtors’ home. Motion granted. Creditor satisfied just and convenient test for appointment of receiver under s. 243(1) of Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Can.), and s. 101 of Courts of Justice Act (Ont.). Debtors were involved in business dealings that were, to say the least, suspect. Nothing of substance supported debtors’ assertion that receivership order would jeopardize their ongoing business activities. Credibility of one individual debtor was seriously open to question. Balance of convenience clearly favoured creditor. Debtors failed to establish any triable issues.

Caisse Desjardins des Bois-Francs v. River Rock Financial Canada Corp. (Oct. 31, 2013, Ont. S.C.J., J.R. McCarthy J., File No. CV-13-0742) 234 A.C.W.S. (3d) 268

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?