2024 SCC 28 – Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission)

To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Bankruptcy and insolvency — Debts not released by order of discharge

(00:00:36) Facts and Procedural History

(00:02:57) Held (Karakatsanis and Martin JJ. dissenting in part): The appeal should be allowed in part

(00:03:03) Per Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ.

(00:10:52) Per Karakatsanis and Martin JJ. (dissenting in part)

(00:14:36) Reasons for Judgment: Côté J. (Wagner C.J. and Rowe, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)

(00:14:45) I. Introduction – 1

(00:19:08) II. Facts – 7

(00:22:17) III. Judicial History – 11

(00:22:19) A. Supreme Court of British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 555 (Crerar J.) – 11

(00:25:24) B. British Columbia Court of Appeal, 2022 BCCA 274, 65 B.C.L.R. (6th) 213 (Harris, Willcock and Fenlon JJ.A.) – 15

(00:28:24) IV. Issues – 20

(00:29:02) V. Analysis – 21

(00:29:04) A. General Principles Governing the Discharge of a Bankrupt – 21

(00:30:56) (1) Section 172: Court May Grant or Refuse Discharge – 23

(00:32:28) (2) Section 178(1): Debts Not Released by Order of Discharge – 25

(00:33:54) (3) The Poonians’ Application for Discharge Was Refused Under Section 172 – 28

(00:36:11) B. Do the Commission’s Claims Fall Within the Section 178(1) Exceptions? – 31

(00:36:17) (1) Section 178(1)(a) – 31

(00:37:27) (a) Section 178(1)(a) Is Not Limited to Orders Imposed in a Criminal or Quasi‑Criminal Context – 33

(00:42:57) (b) The Words “Imposed by a Court” Do Not Capture Orders Made by Administrative Tribunals That Are Subsequently Registered as Judgments of a Court – 43

(00:49:04) (c) Application of Section 178(1)(a) to the Commission’s Orders – 51

(00:49:10) (i) The Commission’s Administrative Penalties Are Not Exempt From Discharge Under Section 178(1)(a) – 51

(00:49:40) (ii) The Commission’s Disgorgement Orders Are Not Exempt From Discharge Under Section 178(1)(a) – 52

(00:49:59) (2) Section 178(1)(e) – 53

(00:54:49) (a) False Pretences or Fraudulent Misrepresentation – 61

(01:00:18) (b) Passing of Property or Provision of Services – 70

(01:02:07) (c) Link Required Between the Debt or Liability and the Fraud – 74

(01:09:37) (d) There Is No “Direct Victim” Requirement – 83

(01:18:24) (e) Application of Section 178(1)(e) to the Commission’s Orders – 96

(01:22:12) (i) The Commission’s Administrative Penalties Did Not Result From the Fraudulent Scheme – 102

(01:27:04) (ii) The Commission’s Disgorgement Orders Did Result From the Fraudulent Scheme – 108

(01:30:54) VI. Conclusion – 115

(01:32:14) Reasons Dissenting in Part: Karakatsanis J. (Martin J. concurring) – 117