Gill (Re) (In Bankruptcy)
Although the court has inherent jurisdiction in limited circumstances to charge trust assets for remuneration of a trustee whose necessary efforts preserved or enhanced the trust property, the jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and is constrained by the BIA; on the evidence before the court the trustee was not entitled to a general retrospective or prospective omnibus charge and the application was dismissed, with liberty to reapply on full material.
- Citation
- 2002 BCSC 1401
- Parties
- Trustee/interim Receiver: Deloitte & Touche Inc.; Creditor/opponent: MCAP Financial Corporation; Creditor/inspector: Toronto Dominion Bank; Creditor/inspector: HSBC Bank Canada; Creditor/inspector: Royal Bank of Canada; Bankrupt: Tarsem Singh Gill; Creditor/inspector: CIBC Mortgages Inc.; Creditor/inspector: Vancouver City Savings Credit Union; Creditor/inspector: Citizens Bank; Creditor/inspector: Bank of Montreal
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 October 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy / Application for Charge Over Assets for Trustee's Fees and Costs
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; leave to reapply granted on full material
- Legal Topics
- Equitable Charge Over Trust Assets, Trust Claims and Tracing, Priority of Remuneration, Inherent Jurisdiction
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Deloitte & Touche Inc.
Trustee/interim Receiver
MCAP Financial Corporation
Creditor/opponent
Toronto Dominion Bank
Creditor/inspector
HSBC Bank Canada
Creditor/inspector
Royal Bank of Canada
Creditor/inspector
Tarsem Singh Gill
Bankrupt
CIBC Mortgages Inc.
Creditor/inspector
Vancouver City Savings Credit Union
Creditor/inspector
Citizens Bank
Creditor/inspector
Bank of Montreal
Creditor/inspector
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Application for Charge Over Assets for Trustee's Fees and Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has inherent/equitable jurisdiction to charge assets subject to third‑party trust claims with a trustee in bankruptcy's fees and expenses
- 2 Whether such jurisdiction is ousted or limited by the statutory scheme of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
- 3 Whether a retrospective and/or prospective omnibus charge is just and equitable in the circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
Although the court has inherent jurisdiction in limited circumstances to charge trust assets for remuneration of a trustee whose necessary efforts preserved or enhanced the trust property, the jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and is constrained by the BIA; on the evidence before the court the trustee was not entitled to a general retrospective or prospective omnibus charge and the application was dismissed, with liberty to reapply on full material.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; leave to reapply granted on full material
Orders
- Application dismissed
- No charge granted over assets (retrospective or prospective) at this time
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment