Area Finance Inc. (Re)

Area Finance Inc. (Re)

The Prince George action was dismissed and leave to sue under s.215 BIA was refused because s.215 required leave prior to commencement which CRC did not obtain and the court will not grant leave nunc pro tunc; additionally CRC's pleadings and evidence failed to meet the evidentiary threshold and were barred in part...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1319
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: CRC Enterprises Ltd.; Defendant/trustee in Bankruptcy: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.; Defendant/counsel for Trustee (contested Party): Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP; Defendant/inspector: Mel Martin; Defendant/inspector: Wendy Benyk; Defendant/inspector: Louise Fisher; Defendant/inspector: Alistair Schroff; Defendant/inspector: Gai Klassen
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy and Insolvency — Applications Concerning Leave to Sue Under S.215 BIA and Motion to Dismiss / Application Hearing on Leave Under S.215 and Summary Dismissal; Costs Reserved
Outcome
Prince George action dismissed; leave to commence proceedings under s.215 BIA refused; related applications dismissed or declared moot; costs reserved and procedure for costs hearing directed.
Legal Topics
Section 215 BIA Leave Requirement, Nunc Pro Tunc Leave, Confidentiality and Release Clauses, Gatekeeping for Trustees, Summary Dismissal, Costs Procedure
Source Language
english
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort — Negligent Misrepresentation Section 215 BIA Leave Requirement Nunc Pro Tunc Leave Confidentiality and Release Clauses Gatekeeping for Trustees +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CRC Enterprises Ltd.

Plaintiff/applicant

PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.

Defendant/trustee in Bankruptcy

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP

Defendant/counsel for Trustee (contested Party)

Mel Martin

Defendant/inspector

Wendy Benyk

Defendant/inspector

Louise Fisher

Defendant/inspector

Alistair Schroff

Defendant/inspector

Gai Klassen

Defendant/inspector

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy and Insolvency — Applications Concerning Leave to Sue Under S.215 BIA and Motion to Dismiss / Application Hearing on Leave Under S.215 and Summary Dismissal; Costs Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under s.215 of the BIA was required before commencing the Prince George action
  2. 2 Whether leave could be granted nunc pro tunc after commencement
  3. 3 Whether CRC's proposed claims disclosed a cause of action and met the evidentiary threshold for leave

Ratio Decidendi

The Prince George action was dismissed and leave to sue under s.215 BIA was refused because s.215 required leave prior to commencement which CRC did not obtain and the court will not grant leave nunc pro tunc; additionally CRC's pleadings and evidence failed to meet the evidentiary threshold and were barred in part by the confidentiality agreement's release, rendering the claims without an air of reality; related applications were rendered moot.

Court Disposition

Prince George action dismissed; leave to commence proceedings under s.215 BIA refused; related applications dismissed or declared moot; costs reserved and procedure for costs hearing directed.

Orders

  • The Prince George civil action is dismissed.
  • Leave to commence the Prince George action under s.215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is refused.