Humphrey Estate, Re, 2010 ABQB 502

• Judge: Horner, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 10, 2010
• Citations: 2010 ABQB 502;(2010), 501 A.R. 270 (QB)

Humphrey Estate, Re (2010), 501 A.R. 270 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. JL.160

In The Matter Of the Estate in Bankruptcy of Michael Paul Humphrey

Alger & Associates, Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Michael Paul Humphrey (applicant) v. Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (respondent)

(BK01 1056678; 2010 ABQB 502)

Indexed As: Humphrey Estate, Re

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Horner, J.

July 26, 2010.

Summary:

Since 2007, electronic filing with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy of ordinary bankruptcies and Division 1 proposals under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was mandatory. The bankrupt's trustee paid $150 for the use of software to meet the e-filing requirements. The trustee sought to claim the fee as a disbursement.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the licensing fee was an allowable disbursement.

Bankruptcy - Topic 2779

Trustees - Compensation - Disbursements - Since 2007, electronic filing with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy of ordinary bankruptcies and Division 1 proposals under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was mandatory - The bankrupt's trustee paid $150 for the use of software to meet the e-filing requirements - The trustee sought to claim the fee as a disbursement - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the software licensing fee was in the nature of a disbursement - As e-filing was mandatory, the expense was properly incurred - Claiming the fee as a disbursement was not prohibited by rule 58(3) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules as the fee was not an indirect cost of the trustee's facilities or premises - Rule 58(3) extended more to computer equipment and software that formed part of the infrastructure of the trustee's office - The licensing fee here was specific to a particular estate and, therefore, stood in contrast to the cost of software purchased for general purposes - The licensing fee was an allowable disbursement.

Cases Noticed:

Oliver (Bankrupt), Re (1999), 16 B.C.T.C. 233; 13 C.B.R.(4th) 122 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Pottie, Re (2002), 32 C.B.R.(4th) 92 (N.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Mitchell, Re (2003), 27 Alta. L.R.(4th) 281; 2003 ABQB 332, refd to. [para. 23].

Morris (Bankrupt), Re (2004), 243 Sask.R. 204; 2004 SKQB 4 (Bktcy. Reg.), refd to. [para. 23].

Cochran (Bankrupt), Re, [2006] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 85; 24 C.B.R.(5th) 130; 2006 NSSC 242 (Bktcy. Reg.), refd to. [para. 23].

Hansraj v. Ao et al. (2002), 314 A.R. 283; 2002 ABQB 772, refd to. [para. 26].

Jorgensen v. San Francisco Gifts Ltd. (1997), 207 A.R. 135 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Ontario (Director, Mortgage Brokers Act) v. Coulter (1992), 11 C.B.R.(3d) 307 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 28].

298157 Alberta Ltd., Re, [2005] A.R. Uned. 969; 16 C.B.R.(5th) 313; 2005 ABQB 941 (Bktcy. Reg.), refd to. [para. 40].

Counsel:

Susan L. Robinson-Burns, Q.C. (Miles Davison LLP), for the applicant;

Rolinda D.Y. Mack (Department of Justice Canada), for the respondent.

This application was heard on June 10, 2010, by Horner, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who filed the following reasons for judgment on July 26, 2010.