Mooring (Re)

Mooring (Re)

The registrar exercised his discretion under s.66.32 to permit the debtor to file a second consumer proposal because the 2018 liabilities are materially different from the 1998 obligations, the proposed plan demonstrated a reasonable prospect of being beneficial to unsecured creditors at the leave stage, and allowing the proposal served judicial and financial efficiency despite limited evidence explaining the 1998 default.

Citation
2018 NSSC 190
Parties
Debtor/applicant: Carl Vincent Mooring; Registrar: Raffi A. Balmanoukian
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Consumer Proposal / Application for Leave to File a Second Consumer Proposal Under S.66.32; Decision Reserved and Granted
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Second Consumer Proposal, Annulment, Section 66.32, Judicial Discretion, Statute of Limitations on Debts
Source Language
English
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Consumer Insolvency Civil Procedure Second Consumer Proposal Annulment Section 66.32 Judicial Discretion Statute of Limitations on Debts

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl Vincent Mooring

Debtor/applicant

Raffi A. Balmanoukian

Registrar

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Consumer Proposal / Application for Leave to File a Second Consumer Proposal Under S.66.32; Decision Reserved and Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should permit a debtor to file a second consumer proposal under s.66.32 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
  2. 2 Whether the debtor provided a reasonable explanation for the default of the 1998 proposal
  3. 3 Whether the proposed second proposal has a reasonable prospect of acceptance by creditors

Ratio Decidendi

The registrar exercised his discretion under s.66.32 to permit the debtor to file a second consumer proposal because the 2018 liabilities are materially different from the 1998 obligations, the proposed plan demonstrated a reasonable prospect of being beneficial to unsecured creditors at the leave stage, and allowing the proposal served judicial and financial efficiency despite limited evidence explaining the 1998 default.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Applicant permitted, pursuant to Section 66.32(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, to make a second consumer proposal.