Ontario Civil

Bankruptcy and Insolvency

Court ought not make ruling regarding claim surviving bankruptcy in advance of actual bankruptcy

Plaintiffs owned property and hired defendant to perform renovations pursuant to two contracts. Plaintiff paid portion of money. Plaintiffs claimed work was never completed and only fraction of work was completed with minimal amount of materials supplied. Work done was substandard and had to be demolished and rebuilt by new contractors. Materials supplied were substandard and were wasted due to poor quality of work. Plaintiffs claimed funds paid to defendants in respect of construction contracts were to be held in trust under Construction Lien Act (Ont.) (CLA). Defendants had not commenced any bankruptcy proceedings or taken any steps under Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Can.) (BIA). Defendants intimated that they might eventually do so. Plaintiffs sought declaration that stay did not operate under s. 69.3 of BIA. Declaration denied. Defendants were not trustees for plaintiff under CLA and relationships were not analogous to case law. Fraud was not pleaded or proved. Misappropriation was not shown. Court ought not to make ruling regarding claim or judgment surviving bankruptcy in advance of any actual bankruptcy.

Bridgmohan v. 2218667 Ontario Ltd. (Jan. 22, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., E.M. Morgan J., File No. CV-12-454013) 237 A.C.W.S. (3d) 9

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?