Green (Re)

Green (Re)

The court refused to approve the amended proposal because its terms were not reasonable: the amendment materially reduced creditor recovery and extended the proposal term, the Trustee and principal creditor opposed it, and the applicant failed to provide evidence of ability to pay the increased amounts, making the amendment prejudicial to creditors.

Citation
2023 BCSC 728
Parties
Applicant / Proponent (debtor): Christopher Allen Green; Licensed Insolvency Trustee: Boale, Wood & Company Ltd.; Major Creditor: Canada Revenue Agency
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Proposal Under Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act / Application to Amend an Approved Proposal Following Default; Chamber Hearing on Amended Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application to approve amended proposal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proposal Amendment, Default Under Proposal, Creditor Opposition, Trustee Recommendation, Reasonableness of Proposal Terms
Source Language
English
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Civil Procedure Proposal Amendment Default Under Proposal Creditor Opposition Trustee Recommendation Reasonableness of Proposal Terms

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Allen Green

Applicant / Proponent (debtor)

Boale, Wood & Company Ltd.

Licensed Insolvency Trustee

Canada Revenue Agency

Major Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Proposal Under Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act / Application to Amend an Approved Proposal Following Default; Chamber Hearing on Amended Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should approve a material amendment to an already-approved proposal after the debtor defaulted
  2. 2 Whether the amended proposal's terms are reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated ability to pay revised amounts

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to approve the amended proposal because its terms were not reasonable: the amendment materially reduced creditor recovery and extended the proposal term, the Trustee and principal creditor opposed it, and the applicant failed to provide evidence of ability to pay the increased amounts, making the amendment prejudicial to creditors.

Court Disposition

Application to approve amended proposal dismissed

Orders

  • Court declines to approve the amended Proposal on the grounds its terms are not reasonable and creditor opposition and lack of evidence of payment ability