Tahlil (Re)

Tahlil (Re)

The bankrupt's application was dismissed because the affidavit and evidence were wholly deficient to address the four Re Cowie factors required to modify a prior conditional discharge under s.172(3) BIA; the bankrupt failed to satisfy the onus to show no reasonable probability of compliance and was granted liberty to reapply with proper evidence.

Citation
2017 BCSC 498
Parties
Bankrupt: Mohammed Ahmed Tahlil; Trustee: E. Sands & Associates Inc.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application to Modify Conditional Discharge Under BIA / In Chambers Oral Reasons on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Discharge, Modification of Discharge, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act S.172(3), Onus of Proof, Re Cowie Factors
Source Language
English
Bankruptcy Insolvency Conditional Discharge Modification of Discharge Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act S.172(3) Onus of Proof Re Cowie Factors

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Ahmed Tahlil

Bankrupt

E. Sands & Associates Inc.

Trustee

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Application to Modify Conditional Discharge Under BIA / In Chambers Oral Reasons on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should modify the terms of a prior conditional discharge under s.172(3) BIA
  2. 2 Whether the bankrupt satisfied the onus of proving there is no reasonable probability of complying with the prior order
  3. 3 Whether the application was brought under the correct statutory provision and supported by sufficient evidence in affidavit form

Ratio Decidendi

The bankrupt's application was dismissed because the affidavit and evidence were wholly deficient to address the four Re Cowie factors required to modify a prior conditional discharge under s.172(3) BIA; the bankrupt failed to satisfy the onus to show no reasonable probability of compliance and was granted liberty to reapply with proper evidence.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed; bankrupt granted liberty to reapply pursuant to s.172(3) BIA with proper evidence, proper notice and proof of service