Digests

BANKRUPTCY

Judicial review of decisions by delegate of Superintendent of Bankruptcy rejecting most allegations of misconduct against respondents for delay in administration of two estates—Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3, ss. 14.01, 14.02 establishing particular scheme to afford trustees fair hearing, certain procedural safeguards prior to imposing measure, sanction under Act—Office of Superintendent of Bankruptcy carrying out various monitoring activities in regard of respondents, revealing alleged irregularities in respondents’ operations—These activities resulting in investigation, report wherein applicant alleging numerous professional conduct breaches by respondents—Whether allegations subject to due diligence defence—Numerous case law recognizing availability of strict liability defences in professional misconduct situations—Availability of strict liability defences within framework of professional disciplinary proceedings appearing to be well settled in Quebec, New Brunswick, British Columbia—However, applicant arguing reconsideration of that issue carried out by Ontario Divisional Court—In one such case, availability of strict liability defences questioned, but professional misconduct issue nevertheless determined according to sui generis approach—Sui generis nature of professional misconduct proceedings recognized by Federal Court of Appeal within context of proceedings involving bankruptcy trustees—Sui generis approach appropriate in determining if particular alleged professional misconduct subject or not to defence of due diligence, reasonable care—Delegate correctly concluding defence of due diligence available to respondents in regard to five allegations, but erring in finding due diligence defence made out for all five—Two of those findings unreasonable, warranting Court’s intervention—Application allowed in part.

Laperrière v. MacLeod (T-327-09, 2010 FC 97, Mainville J., judgment dated January 28, 2010, 58 pp.)