Mark Jacques Custom Upholestry v. Buchanan

Mark Jacques Custom Upholestry v. Buchanan

The Small Claims Court lacked authority to grant remedies under s.198 or to annul a consumer proposal under s.66.3 because those remedies and offences fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; the debt at issue was disclosed in the consumer proposal so s.178(f) (undisclosed claim dividend remedy) does not apply; alleged fraudulent misrepresentation related to origination was not established in a way actionable here; s.150 (as made applicable by s.66.4) bars a creditor who did not prove his claim prior to distribution from disturbing prior dividends; any alleged post-approval promise to pay lacked fresh consideration and is unenforceable; accordingly there is no legal basis in...

Citation
2017 NSSM 62
Parties
Claimant: JOHN ROBERT WONNACOTT; Defendant: DARREN CHRISTOPHER DEDRICK
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Claim / Decision (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Consumer Proposal, Section 178 BIA Exceptions to Discharge, Section 198 BIA False Entries/offences, Section 66.3 Annulment of Consumer Proposals, Dividend Entitlement Under Trustee Distribution, Promissory Note and Consideration, Hearsay Admissibility (principled Exception)
Source Language
English
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Contract Law Limitation of Actions Evidence Civil Procedure Consumer Proposal Section 178 BIA Exceptions to Discharge Section 198 BIA False Entries/offences +4 more

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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JOHN ROBERT WONNACOTT

Claimant

DARREN CHRISTOPHER DEDRICK

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Claim / Decision (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether limitation periods bar the Claimant's action
  2. 2 Whether section 198 BIA and remedies for false statements are actionable in Small Claims Court or reserved to Supreme Court under s.66.3
  3. 3 Whether the action survives under section 178 BIA exceptions to discharge

Ratio Decidendi

The Small Claims Court lacked authority to grant remedies under s.198 or to annul a consumer proposal under s.66.3 because those remedies and offences fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; the debt at issue was disclosed in the consumer proposal so s.178(f) (undisclosed claim dividend remedy) does not apply; alleged fraudulent misrepresentation related to origination was not established in a way actionable here; s.150 (as made applicable by s.66.4) bars a creditor who did not prove his claim prior to distribution from disturbing prior dividends; any alleged post-approval promise to pay lacked fresh consideration and is unenforceable; accordingly there is no legal basis in...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No costs to any party