Knowles (re)

Knowles (re)

Applicant did not meet the statutory onus under s.172(3) BIA to show there is no reasonable probability of being in a position to comply with the conditional order. There were no material changes in circumstances since the 2020 conditional order, the applicant provided insufficient evidence of inability to comply or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 NSSC 94
Parties
Applicant/bankrupt: Leah Jean Knowles; Respondent/creditor: Canada Revenue Agency
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy and Insolvency / S.172(3) BIA Variation Application Following Conditional Discharge; Discharge Variation Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Discharge, Variation of Conditional Discharge, Post Bankruptcy Tax Obligations, S.172(3) BIA, Surplus Income
Source Language
english
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Tax Law Civil Procedure Conditional Discharge Variation of Conditional Discharge Post Bankruptcy Tax Obligations S.172(3) BIA Surplus Income

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leah Jean Knowles

Applicant/bankrupt

Canada Revenue Agency

Respondent/creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy and Insolvency / S.172(3) BIA Variation Application Following Conditional Discharge; Discharge Variation Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditional order of discharge should be varied under s.172(3) BIA
  2. 2 Whether the bankrupt has shown there is no reasonable probability of being in a position to comply with the terms of the conditional order
  3. 3 Whether there have been material changes in circumstances since the conditional order

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant did not meet the statutory onus under s.172(3) BIA to show there is no reasonable probability of being in a position to comply with the conditional order. There were no material changes in circumstances since the 2020 conditional order, the applicant provided insufficient evidence of inability to comply or adequate efforts to comply, and therefore the court declined to exercise its discretion to vary the order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No further application for variation of the conditional discharge may be made for one year from the date of release of this decision without prior leave of the Court