General Electric Capital Corp. v. Orr

General Electric Capital Corp. v. Orr

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to adduce any affirmative evidence meeting the threshold required by s.2 of the Fraudulent Preference Act (insolvency/collusion/intent to prefer); no reverse onus shifted to respondents; transcripts and affidavit material were sufficient on a summary basis...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 BCSC 59
Parties
Plaintiff/judgment Creditor: General Electric Capital Corporation; Defendant/judgment Debtor: Thomas Orr; Judgment Creditor: The Cabinet Trust Company Limited (Trustee of the Glen Eagles 1993 Settlement); Judgment Creditor: Northwestern International Aircraft Corp.; Judgment Creditor: Pacific Capital Holdings Limited
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Fraudulent Preference Act to Set Aside Judgments / Chambers Show Cause Motion (s.9) Following Earlier Summary Judgments; Motion Dismissed
Outcome
Amended notice of motion dismissed; applicant failed to establish threshold under s.2 and respondents showed cause under s.9(2)(b)
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Preference, Setting Aside Judgments, Summary Judgment, Burden of Proof, Collusion, Limitation Defences
Source Language
english
Insolvency Commercial Law Civil Procedure Equity Fraudulent Preference Setting Aside Judgments Summary Judgment Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

General Electric Capital Corporation

Plaintiff/judgment Creditor

Thomas Orr

Defendant/judgment Debtor

The Cabinet Trust Company Limited (Trustee of the Glen Eagles 1993 Settlement)

Judgment Creditor

Northwestern International Aircraft Corp.

Judgment Creditor

Pacific Capital Holdings Limited

Judgment Creditor

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Fraudulent Preference Act to Set Aside Judgments / Chambers Show Cause Motion (s.9) Following Earlier Summary Judgments; Motion Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.9 show‑cause procedure of the Fraudulent Preference Act applies to judgments and whether applicant must show threshold evidence under s.2
  2. 2 Whether the burden shifted to respondents to prove absence of fraud or collusion
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities in affidavits or delay and foreign plaintiffs suffice to void judgments

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to adduce any affirmative evidence meeting the threshold required by s.2 of the Fraudulent Preference Act (insolvency/collusion/intent to prefer); no reverse onus shifted to respondents; transcripts and affidavit material were sufficient on a summary basis to show cause why the judgments should not be set aside; procedural irregularities did not demonstrate fraud or egregious abuse of process and could be cured under the Rules of Court.

Court Disposition

Amended notice of motion dismissed; applicant failed to establish threshold under s.2 and respondents showed cause under s.9(2)(b)

Orders

  • Amended notice of motion dismissed
  • Costs awarded to The Cabinet Trust Company Limited, Northwestern International Aircraft Corp. and Pacific Capital Holdings Limited