Markovina v. Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. et al., (1991) 3 B.C.A.C. 155 (CA)

JudgeMcEachern, C.J.B.C., Hutcheon and Toy, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (British Columbia)
Case DateMay 09, 1991
JurisdictionBritish Columbia
Citations(1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 155 (CA)

Markovina v. Coopers & Lybrand (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 155 (CA);

    7 W.A.C. 155

MLB headnote and full text

Nikica Markovina (appellant) v. Coopers & Lybrand Limited, Egon Novak, Petar J. Kokan and Chicago Title Insurance Company (respondents)

(No. CAO13635)

Indexed As: Markovina v. Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Hutcheon and Toy, JJ.A.

July 16, 1991.

Summary:

Markovina applied to set aside a receiving order made under the Bankruptcy Act. The chambers judge dismissed the application. Markovina appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Bankruptcy - Topic 10

Interpretation of bankruptcy law - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the bankruptcy laws should not be strictly interpreted as they were in the past (see paragraphs 15 to 17).

Bankruptcy - Topic 6710

Practice - Curative provisions - A debtor applied to set aside a receiving order based on defects in the material used to support the grant of the receiving order - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed a dismissal of the application - The court stated that a claim to set aside a proceeding, as of right, based on a failure to comply with the rules, cannot be made where the court is given a broad discretion such as that found in s. 110 of the Bankruptcy Act Rules (see paragraph 9).

Bankruptcy - Topic 6710

Practice - Curative provisions - An affidavit used in an application for a receiving order was defective (a date was omitted in the jurat) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the trial judge had a discretion to receive the affidavit despite its defect (see paragraphs 14 to 20).

Cases Noticed:

Chanteclerc de Ste Rose Ltee v. Racz, 10 C.B.R. (N.S.) 298, refd to. [para. 13].

Skeleton, In re (ex parte Coates) (1877), 5 Ch.D. 979, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 21 N.R. 295; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299, refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Bankruptcy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, sect. 187(9) [para. 6].

Bankruptcy Act Rules, sect. 69 [para. 3]; sect. 110 [para. 8].

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 40 [para. 18].

Evidence Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 116, sect. 74 [para. 17].

Counsel:

Dana H. Prince, for the appellant;

   Kimberly S. Campbell, for the respondent, Coopers & Lybrand Limited.

This appeal was heard by McEachern, C.J.B.C., Hutcheon and Toy, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal at Vancouver, B.C., on May 9, 1991. The decision of the court was delivered by Hutcheon, J.A., on July 16, 1991.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Langret Investments S.A. et al. v. McDonnell, (1996) 72 B.C.A.C. 252 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • February 2, 1996
    ...amend - "Potential" or presumed prejudice could not bar an amendment. Cases Noticed: Markovina v. Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. et al. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 155; 7 W.A.C. 155; 57 B.C.L.R.(2d) 192 (C.A.), consd. [para. Barton Realty Co., Re (1963), 5 C.B.R.(N.S.) 109 (Ont. S.C.), consd. [para. 21]......
  • BCS Technology Inc. (Bankrupt), Re, (1999) 14 B.C.T.C. 304 (SC)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 1, 1999
    ...Topic 2426 Proposals - Annulment of - Grounds - See paragraphs 1 to 12. Cases Noticed: Markovina v. Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. et al. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 155; 7 W.A.C. 155; 7 C.B.R.(3d) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Lindsay v. Transtec Canada Ltd. (1994), 28 C.B.R.(3d) 110 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. ......
  • Longmire (Bankrupt), Re, (2001) 194 N.S.R.(2d) 218 (SC Reg.)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • May 9, 2001
    ...193 N.B.R.(2d) 23; 493 A.P.R. 23; 50 C.B.R.(3d) 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16]. Markovina v. Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. et al. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 155; 7 W.A.C. 155; 7 C.B.R.(3d) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Mattela Enterprises Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re (1997), 186 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 476 A.P.R. 161; 4......
3 cases
  • Langret Investments S.A. et al. v. McDonnell, (1996) 72 B.C.A.C. 252 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • February 2, 1996
    ...amend - "Potential" or presumed prejudice could not bar an amendment. Cases Noticed: Markovina v. Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. et al. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 155; 7 W.A.C. 155; 57 B.C.L.R.(2d) 192 (C.A.), consd. [para. Barton Realty Co., Re (1963), 5 C.B.R.(N.S.) 109 (Ont. S.C.), consd. [para. 21]......
  • BCS Technology Inc. (Bankrupt), Re, (1999) 14 B.C.T.C. 304 (SC)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 1, 1999
    ...Topic 2426 Proposals - Annulment of - Grounds - See paragraphs 1 to 12. Cases Noticed: Markovina v. Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. et al. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 155; 7 W.A.C. 155; 7 C.B.R.(3d) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Lindsay v. Transtec Canada Ltd. (1994), 28 C.B.R.(3d) 110 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. ......
  • Longmire (Bankrupt), Re, (2001) 194 N.S.R.(2d) 218 (SC Reg.)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • May 9, 2001
    ...193 N.B.R.(2d) 23; 493 A.P.R. 23; 50 C.B.R.(3d) 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16]. Markovina v. Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. et al. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 155; 7 W.A.C. 155; 7 C.B.R.(3d) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Mattela Enterprises Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re (1997), 186 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 476 A.P.R. 161; 4......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT