JND Associates (Re)

JND Associates (Re)

Documentary evidence and the testimony of the appellant's former bookkeeper provided sufficient support for the bankruptcy judge's finding that JND had outstanding unpaid liabilities to other suppliers (Blossom Holdings and Sheeprock Diamonds Limited), thereby satisfying s.42(1)(j) of the BIA and justifying the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 ONCA 465
Parties
Appellant: JND Associates; Respondent: Lucas Vets
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Order, Section 42(1)(j) BIA, Existence of Other Creditors' Debts, Appellate Review of Factual Findings
Source Language
en
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Order Section 42(1)(j) BIA Existence of Other Creditors' Debts Appellate Review of Factual Findings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JND Associates

Appellant

Lucas Vets

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Order

  1. 1 Whether the bankruptcy judge erred in finding the appellant had debts with other creditors
  2. 2 Whether s.42(1)(j) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was satisfied to justify a bankruptcy order

Ratio Decidendi

Documentary evidence and the testimony of the appellant's former bookkeeper provided sufficient support for the bankruptcy judge's finding that JND had outstanding unpaid liabilities to other suppliers (Blossom Holdings and Sheeprock Diamonds Limited), thereby satisfying s.42(1)(j) of the BIA and justifying the bankruptcy order; the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Bankruptcy order of Justice James M. Spence dated January 9, 2008 upheld
  • Costs to the respondent fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.