Williams (F.) Logging Co. et al. v. Roethel et al.

JurisdictionBritish Columbia
CourtCourt of Appeal (British Columbia)
JudgeMacfarlane, Ryan and Donald, JJ.A.
Citation(1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84 (CA)
Date02 March 1995

Williams Logging Co. v. Roethel (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84 (CA);

    96 W.A.C. 84

MLB headnote and full text

F. Williams Logging Co. Ltd. and Margaret Forestry Ltd. (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Klaus Roethel and Roethel Resources Ltd. (defendants/appellants)

(V01821)

Indexed As: Williams (F.) Logging Co. et al. v. Roethel et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Macfarlane, Ryan and Donald, JJ.A.

March 2, 1995.

Summary:

The defendant Roethel consented to judg­ment against him in the plaintiffs' action for losses suffered by his alleged maladmin-istration of their business and financial affairs. A Chambers judge subsequently ruled that the judgment debt survived Roethel's discharge from bank­ruptcy. Roethel appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Bankruptcy - Topic 8983

Discharge of debtor - Liabilities not released by discharge - Acts of defalcation in fiduciary capacity - Section 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provided that a discharge did not release a bankrupt from any debt or liability arising out of fraud, embezzlement, misappropri­ation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity - The defendant con­sented to judgment against him for defal­cations related to his administration of the plaintiffs' business and financial affairs - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the judgment debt survived the defendant's discharge from bankruptcy.

Cases Noticed:

Viking Well Services Ltd. v. Metrocan Leasing Ltd. (1988), 67 C.B.R.(N.S.) 278 (Alta. C.A.), not appld. [para. 4].

Smith v. Henderson et al. (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 249; 21 W.A.C. 249; 64 B.C.L.R.(2d) 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, sect. 178(1)(d) [paras. 3-4, 6].

Counsel:

John McLean, for the respondent;

Robert C. Di Bella and Nicholas A. Mosky, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard in Victoria, British Columbia, before Macfarlane, Ryan and Donald, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered orally by Donald, J.A., on March 2, 1995.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
5 practice notes
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 25, 2022 ' July 29, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • August 2, 2022
    ...and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3, s. 178(1)(e), Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25.06(8), F. Williams Logging Co. v. Roethel (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company v. Rodriguez, 2018 ONCA 178, McAteer v. Billes, 2007 ABCA 137, H.Y. Louie Co. Limited v. Bowick......
  • Mayer v Merchant Law Group LLP
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 16, 2025
    ...a trustee fails to fulfill their obligations with respect to the administration of the trust: F. Williams Logging Co. Ltd. v. Roethel (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84, 1995 CanLII 2606 (C.A.) at para. 6. The defendant did not aggressively contest that there was a proper cause of action pleaded in thi......
  • Louie (H.Y.) Co. v. Bowick
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • March 18, 2015
    ...(2005), 282 N.B.R.(2d) 61; 738 A.P.R. 61; 2005 NBCA 32, refd to. [paras. 40, 81]. Williams (F.) Logging Co. et al. v. Roethel et al. (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84; 96 W.A.C. 84; 32 C.B.R.(3d) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 42, Bourassa (Bankrupt), Re (2002), 312 A.R. 19; 281 W.A.C. 19; 2002 ABCA 205,......
  • Peterson v. Peterson, (1995) 178 A.R. 70 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • November 24, 1995
    ...18]. Berthold v. MacLellan, [1994] A.J. No. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19]. Williams (F.) Logging Co. et al. v. Roethel et al. (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84; 96 W.A.C. 84; 32 C.B.R.(3d) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19]. Barnacle v. Barnacle, [1993] O.J. No. 1273 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19......
  • Get Started for Free
4 cases
  • Mayer v Merchant Law Group LLP
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 16, 2025
    ...a trustee fails to fulfill their obligations with respect to the administration of the trust: F. Williams Logging Co. Ltd. v. Roethel (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84, 1995 CanLII 2606 (C.A.) at para. 6. The defendant did not aggressively contest that there was a proper cause of action pleaded in thi......
  • Louie (H.Y.) Co. v. Bowick
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • March 18, 2015
    ...(2005), 282 N.B.R.(2d) 61; 738 A.P.R. 61; 2005 NBCA 32, refd to. [paras. 40, 81]. Williams (F.) Logging Co. et al. v. Roethel et al. (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84; 96 W.A.C. 84; 32 C.B.R.(3d) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 42, Bourassa (Bankrupt), Re (2002), 312 A.R. 19; 281 W.A.C. 19; 2002 ABCA 205,......
  • Peterson v. Peterson, (1995) 178 A.R. 70 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • November 24, 1995
    ...18]. Berthold v. MacLellan, [1994] A.J. No. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19]. Williams (F.) Logging Co. et al. v. Roethel et al. (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84; 96 W.A.C. 84; 32 C.B.R.(3d) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19]. Barnacle v. Barnacle, [1993] O.J. No. 1273 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 19......
  • M.O.S. MortgageOne Solutions Ltd. v. Heidary
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • July 28, 2022
    ...to determine whether the consent constituted an admission of anything mentioned in s. 178(1)(e): F. Williams Logging Co. v. Roethel (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84, at para. 6. The motion judge was uniquely positioned to do so, given that he had also granted the consent judgment. In concluding that ......
1 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 25, 2022 ' July 29, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • August 2, 2022
    ...and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3, s. 178(1)(e), Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25.06(8), F. Williams Logging Co. v. Roethel (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 84, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company v. Rodriguez, 2018 ONCA 178, McAteer v. Billes, 2007 ABCA 137, H.Y. Louie Co. Limited v. Bowick......