Jay Currie

Go over here and scroll down.

At the very bottom there is Order for Costs in the amount of $100.00 payable to Richard Warman by the Northern Alliance and Jason Ouwendyk.

Ouwendyk filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy Act and with that filing all actions against him were stayed. Ouwendyk’s creditors lined up and their claims were listed. Richard Warman claimed $12,550.00.

I am wondering if anyone reading this can explain how a matter which has not gone to trial can give rise to an alleged debt of over $12,000.00 without an actual Order of a Court. I may be missing something.

Warman provides a “Proof of Claim” form along with details of his claim including “Damages for Defamation” in the amount of $10,000.00. Which is odd as, generally, damages are awarded by a court at the end of a trial. Until the Court makes its decision and its order all that the “damages” are is an unproven claim.

It is difficult to imagine how the Trustee in this matter would have accepted such a proof of claim but, apparently, it was accepted and Warman is being given the same rights as the other creditors. He is certainly entitled to claim the $100.00 per the Order for Costs and that entitles him to be treated as a creditor. But how can he claim “damages” when no damages have been awarded by a Court?

All of which is more than a little curious.

Update: Interestingly, by s. 135 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act the trustee in this instance is entitled to accept the “Proof of claim” not withstanding the absence of an actual trial of the action. In effect the Warman claim can be seen as a contingent claim on Ouwendyk and accepted as such. Apparently that is exactly what has happened here.

I suspect the other creditors were a bit pissed but if the trustee accepts the claim they would have to challenge that acceptance and they, apparently, have not.

Smelly, why yes. Illegal, apparently not.

Update #2

The lawyer must discharge this duty by fair and honourable means, without illegality and in a manner that is consistent with the lawyer’s duty to treat the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy and respect and in a way that promotes the parties’ right to a fair hearing where justice can be done. Maintaining dignity, decorum, and courtesy in the courtroom is not an empty formality because, unless order is maintained, rights cannot be protected.

This rule applies to the lawyer as advocate, and therefore extends not only to court proceedings but also to appearances and proceedings before boards, administrative tribunals, arbitrators, mediators, and others who resolve disputes, regardless of their function or the informality of their procedures…..Canons, Law Society of Upper Canada