By Sarah D. Pinsonnault The act of discharging debts under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is based on the premise thathonest and unfortunate debtors deserve a fresh start in life and to be freedfrom former financial obligations (a.k.a. the “fresh start” principle). Section178(1) BIA stands however as an exception to the “fresh start” principle, inthat a creditor may seek a declaration whereby one of the pre-bankruptcy debts listedin this section survives the bankrupt’s discharge. One such debt would be anaward for damages in a civil proceeding in respect of “bodily harmintentionally inflicted” by the bankrupt (s. 178(1)(a.1)(i) BIA). In Leighton v. Best, 2015 ONCA 180, we learn that the creditor must prove theactual intent on behalf of the bankrupt to cause bodily harm, and not his mereintent to commit an act that could lead to bodily harm. However, in instanceswhere there may lack direct proof of intentional infliction of harm,… Lire la suite
Étiquette : Intention
26
Fév2015
The Difference Between Voluntary and Intentional Acts
By Sarah D. PinsonnaultIn order to be found guilty ofcontempt of court, the party alleging contempt must prove beyond a reasonabledoubt that the alleged contemnor voluntarily committed the act which wasprohibited by the terms of a court order (actusreus) and that he had the intention to knowingly and wilfully do so (mens rea). In Stoyanova c. Disques Mile End,2015 QCCA 317, the Appellant in part submits that the trial judge erred in lawby conflating her analysis of actus reuswith her analysis of mens rea. Morespecifically, the Appellant contends that the trial judge misinterpreted the actus reus criterion by associating itwith the term voluntarily (“volontairement”);a term she claims is reserved for the mens rea analysis.In order to properly address this issue on appeal, the Court of Appeal first hadto clarify the difference between acts that are committed “voluntarily” versus thosethat are committed “intentionally”. Given that an allegation ofcontempt of court is… Lire la suite
20
Mai2014
Erreur cléricale et intention des parties
Par Julien LussierIrving Mitchell Kalichman s.e.n.c.r.l. Dans Investissements Carolina inc. c. Gourmet Bazar inc. (2014 QCCS 1627), la Cour supérieure a refusé d’accorder l’ordonnance d’expulsion demandée par Investissements Carolina inc, bien que le locataire, Gourmet Bazar inc., ait fait défaut d’envoyer un avis de renouvellement dans les délais requis, et selon la forme prescrite par le bail. La Cour est d’avis que l’erreur cléricale contenue dans le bail quant à la date limite pour exercer l’option de renouvellement ne saurait profiter au stipulant, Investissements Carolina inc., et que l’intention de Gourmet Bazar inc. ressortait clairement de la correspondance des mois et des années qui précédaient l’expiration du terme initial du bail. Les faitsLe 1er octobre 2002, Investissements Carolina inc., à titre de locateur, et Gourmet Bazar inc., à titre de locataire, signent un bail commercial d’une durée initiale de dix ans se terminant le 31 mai 2012. Le bail prévoit… Lire la suite