Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY

Citation: G. W. Holmes Trucking (1990) Ltd., Re, 2005NSSC179

 

Date: June 27, 2005

                   Docket: B 26197

Registry: Halifax                                                                              

District of Nova Scotia

Division No. 1 - Halifax

Court No. B 26197

Estate No. 51-112665                                                                                                                                                                                                     

      In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of G. W. Holmes Trucking (1990) Limited

__________________________________________________________________

 

LIBRARY HEADING

__________________________________________________________________

 

Registrar:                   Richard W. Cregan, Q.C.                                         

 

Heard:                        February 16, 2005 and May 18, 2005                                              

 

Written Decision:       June 27, 2005

 

Subject:                       Examination under subsection 163(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, (the “Act”).

 

Summary:                   A creditor of the bankrupt company obtained orders to examine former employees of the bankrupt under subsection 163(2) of the Act.

 

Issue:                          They objected to the continuation of the examination, alleging the creditor was not acting in the best interest of the creditors generally, the creditor’s counsel had a conflict of interest, the creditor had obtained preferential payments from the bankrupt, and there were other procedures available for conducting the examination.

 

Result:                        The court rejected their allegations, confirmed the orders for examination and gave directions for their continuance.

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT’S DECISION


QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.