HOJ National Leasing Corp. (Re)
The motion judge did not err in adjourning the motion to permit written questions to the trustee and awaiting the trustee's answers; it was unnecessary and premature to decide the substantive s.215 issue without the trustee's responses and a proper record, therefore the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C44626, C44627
- Parties
- Appellant: The Registrar, Ontario Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund; Appellant: John Doe and all other customers of the bankrupts; Respondent: A. Farber & Partners Inc.; Respondent: CFI Trust
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Motion Judge Order (lederman J.)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- S.215 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Trustee Reports and Examinations, Assignment of Leases, Standing and Representation, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Registrar, Ontario Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund
Appellant
John Doe and all other customers of the bankrupts
Appellant
A. Farber & Partners Inc.
Respondent
CFI Trust
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Motion Judge Order (lederman J.)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge erred in adjourning the motion to permit written questions and answers to the trustee
- 2 Whether a trustee must file an affidavit under s.215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or whether filing a report is sufficient
- 3 Whether the appellants were entitled to immediate adjudication without awaiting the trustee's written responses
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge did not err in adjourning the motion to permit written questions to the trustee and awaiting the trustee's answers; it was unnecessary and premature to decide the substantive s.215 issue without the trustee's responses and a proper record, therefore the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Costs awarded to respondent A. Farber & Partners Inc. in the amount of $6,330.00 plus GST
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HOJ National Leasing Corp. (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-06-16 Docket numbers C44626, C44627 Judges Borins, Stephen; MacFarland, Jean Louise; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20060616 DOCKET: C44626 & C44627 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF HOJ NATIONAL LEASING CORP. OF THE CITY OF TORONTO IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO RE: THE REGISTRAR, ONTARIO MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT AND MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS COMPENSATION FUND AND JOHN DOE AND ALL OTHER CUSTOMERS OF THE BANKRUPTS (Appellants) – and – A. FARBER & PARTNERS INC. (Respondent) BEFORE: BORINS, MACFARLAND and ROULEAU JJ.A. COUNSEL: Larry A. Banack and Nancy Shapiro for the appellants Stuart Brotman for the respondent, A. Farber & Partners Inc. Deobrah E. Palter for the respondent, CFI Trust HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: June 14, 2006 On appeal from the order of Justice Sidney N. Lederman of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 9, 2005. ENDORSEMENT [1] This is an appeal from an order of Lederman J. The appellants seek to examine a representative of A. Farber & Partners Inc., Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estates of HOJ National Leasing Corp. and HOJ National Leasing Inc. (the “trustee”) on its reports to the court and regarding an order obtained by the trustee permitting it to assign thousands of leases between HOJ National Leasing Corp. and HOJ National Leasing Inc. and their customers, without representation from any of the customers whose rights were affected. [2] Lederman J.’s order directed the parties to exchange written questions and answers, and, if the responses were considered unsatisfactory, to return to court. [3] In our view the motion judge correctly exercised his discretion in adjourning the motion to permit the submission of questions in writing to the trustee and awaiting the receipt of the trustee’s answers. Consequently, he quite properly did not adjudicate the merits of the motion, including whether on a motion pursuant to s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act it is sufficient for a trustee to respond by filing a report or whether an affidavit is required. [4] On the return of the motion the appellant will have the opportunity to renew his argument, if so advised, on the basis of the trustee’s answers. At that time, of course, the motion judge will have the opportunity to consider the merits, including the s. 215 issue, which it was unnecessary for Lederman J. to address. If the appellant is then dissatisfied with the result, this court will have a proper record on which to consider the merits of the motion. [5] Consequently, we would dismiss the appeal with costs. In our view, this appeal was completely unnecessary. We would award costs to the respondent A. Farber & Partners Inc. in the amount of $6,330.00 plus GST. Although this appeal relates to two proceedings, only one order is required. “S. Borins J.A.” “J. MacFarland J.A.” “Paul Rouleau J.A.”