Pitblado LLP v. Houde, [2016] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.034

• Judge: Bond, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: September 06, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: [2016] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.034;2016 MBQB 177

Pitblado LLP v. Houde, [2016] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.034

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for Man.R.(2d) - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2016] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.034

Pitblado LLP (plaintiff) v. Penny Lynne Houde (defendant)

(CI 13-01-81739; 2016 MBQB 177)

Indexed As: Pitblado LLP v. Houde

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Bond, J.

September 6, 2016.

Summary:

Laurence Houde and his wife, the defendant Penny Houde, jointly owned property. In June 2009, Laurence transferred his half interest to Penny for "one dollar and other good and valuable consideration". In June 2012, the plaintiff ("Pitblado") was granted judgment against Laurence for $17,792.21. In September 2012, Laurence made an assignment in bankruptcy. Pitblado's action sought to have the transfer set aside as a "transfer at undervalue" (Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, s. 96). The defendant asserted that she had given good and valuable consideration to Laurence that was sufficient to validate the transfer. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the basis that the defendant had not demonstrated an issue to be tried. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff's motion was deferred until the defendant's motion was determined.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2015), 318 Man.R.(2d) 39, dismissed the defendant's motion.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the plaintiff's motion. This was not an appropriate case for summary judgment.

Bankruptcy - Topic 7209

Setting aside transactions prior to bankruptcy - General - Practice - Trial or summary determination - Laurence and his wife, the defendant (Penny), jointly owned property - In June 2009, Laurence transferred his half interest to Penny for "one dollar and other good and valuable consideration" - In June 2012, the plaintiff was granted judgment against Laurence for $17,792.21 - In September 2012, Laurence made an assignment in bankruptcy - The plaintiff's action sought to have the transfer set aside as a "transfer at undervalue" (Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, s. 96) - The defendant asserted that she had given good and valuable consideration to Laurence that was sufficient to validate the transfer - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment - Laurence and the defendant were not dealing with each other at arm's length (married to each other at the time of the transfer) - The transfer occurred within the five-year period before the assignment in bankruptcy - Laurence was unable to meet his financial obligations when the property was transferred or was rendered insolvent by the transfer - The real issue was whether the transfer was for no or minimal consideration - Whether there was an agreement between Laurence and the defendant and whether the forgiveness of the alleged debts and other payments constituted adequate consideration for the transfer had to be determined on the evidence, based on an assessment of the credibility of the defendant and Laurence - The Court could not conclude that the defendant's claim had "no real chance of success" or that the defendant had "failed to show the existence of a genuine issue for determination" - See paragraphs 17 to 29.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - [See Bankruptcy - Topic 7209 ].

Counsel:

Thomas W. Turner, for the plaintiff;

P.L. Houde, was self-represented.

This motion for summary judgment was heard before Bond, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated September 6, 2016.