Tamglass American Inc. v. Richter, Allen & Taylor, Inc.,

• Judge: Conrad,Mahoney,McFadyen
• Neutral Citation: 2005 ABCA 341
• Subject Matter: PRACTICE,ESTOPPEL,BANKRUPTCY
• Citation: 2005 ABCA 341,(2005), 380 A.R. 286 (CA),380 AR 286,(2005), 380 AR 286 (CA),380 A.R. 286
• Date: 16 June 2005
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Tamglass Am. v. Richter, Allen & Taylor (2005), 380 A.R. 286 (CA);

    363 W.A.C. 286

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. OC.123

Tamglass American Inc. (respondent/applicant) v. Richter, Allen & Taylor, Inc., the Proposal Trustee in the Proposal of Goldray Inc. (appellant/respondent)

(0401-0177-AC; 2005 ABCA 341)

Indexed As: Tamglass American Inc. v. Richter, Allen & Taylor, Inc.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad and McFadyen, JJ.A., and Mahoney, J.(ad hoc)

October 14, 2005.

Summary:

A chambers judge, on appeal from a registrar's order, applied the equitable principles of estoppel and relief from forfeiture to permit the filing of a creditor's appeal after the strict time limit established by s. 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) had expired. The bankruptcy trustee appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there was no jurisdiction in the court to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal beyond that established by s. 135(4) of the BIA. However, the court returned the matter for a trial of whether the trustee had proven the date of service of the notice of disallowance, so as to establish that the appeal was in fact filed outside the applicable appeal period.

Bankruptcy - Topic 6889

Practice - Appeals - Time for (incl. extension of) - A chambers judge, on appeal from a registrar's order, applied the equitable principles of estoppel and relief from forfeiture to permit the filing of a creditor's appeal after the strict time limit established by s. 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) had expired - The bankruptcy trustee appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The equitable principles relied upon could not, as a matter of law, nullify the clear statutory language of the BIA - There was no jurisdiction in the court to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal beyond that established by s. 135(4) - See paragraphs 1 to 24.

Estoppel - Topic 1385

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Circumstances where doctrine not applicable - To give court or tribunal jurisdiction expressly denied by statute - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "the equitable jurisdiction of the court to relieve against penalties and forfeitures is applicable only to contractual penalties and forfeitures. The power does not apply to penalties or forfeitures imposed by statute ... this Court has held that the doctrine does not apply to relieve against the mandatory operation of a rule of civil procedure, noting that 'courts have no "inherent power" to do what statutes forbid'" - See paragraph 22.

Practice - Topic 9

General principles and definitions - Dispensing with compliance with rules - [See Estoppel - Topic 1385 ].

Cases Noticed:

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 10].

Massicotte v. Boutin, [1969] S.C.R. 818; 13 D.L.R.(3d) 640, refd to. [para. 14].

Frederickson, Re (1994), 29 C.B.R.(3d) 135 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Thornton - see Royal Bank of Canada v. Drummie (Bankrupt) (2002), 252 N.B.R.(2d) 191; 658 A.P.R. 191; 36 C.B.R.(4th) 96 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Maritime Electric Co. v. General Dairies Ltd., [1937] 1 D.L.R. 609 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Hydro Electric Commission of Kenora (Town) v. Vacationland Dairy Co-operative Ltd., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 80; 162 N.R. 241; 68 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 17].

Principal Group Ltd. (Bankrupt) v. Anderson et al. (1997), 200 A.R. 169; 146 W.A.C. 169; 147 D.L.R.(4th) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Hoffman-La Roche (F.) AG v. Commissioner of Patents, [2004] 2 F.C.R. 405; 242 F.T.R. 64; 2003 FC 1381, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Canadian Northern Railway, [1923] 3 D.L.R. 719 (.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Olympia & York Developments Ltd. v. Calgary (City) (1983), 45 A.R. 204; 26 Alta. L.R.(2d) 307 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Mullen v. Flin Flon (City) et al. (2000), 153 Man.R.(2d) 44; 238 W.A.C. 44; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Hansraj v. Ao et al. (2004), 354 A.R. 91; 329 W.A.C. 91; 2004 ABCA 223, refd to. [para. 22].

Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. and Fikowski v. Maritime Life Assurance Co., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 490; 168 N.R. 381; 155 A.R. 321; 73 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, sect. 135(4) [para. 11]; sect. 187(11) [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Houlden, Lloyd W., and Morawetz, Geoffrey B., Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law of Canada (Rev. 3rd Ed.) (Looseleaf), vol. 2, p. 5-94.4 [para. 14].

Counsel:

J.G. Kruger and C.T. Hustwick, for the appellant;

K. Fellowes, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 16, 2005, by Conrad and McFadyen, JJ.A., and Mahoney, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The court delivered the following memorandum of judgment on October 14, 2005.