Settlement (Garnishment): Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==<i> Raso v. Bayne,</i> 2020 ONSC 6654 (CanLII)== | ==<i> Raso v. Bayne,</i> 2020 ONSC 6654 (CanLII)<ref name=Raso/>== | ||
[11] Frank bears the onus of demonstrating that the settlement ought to be exempt from garnishment (House v. Baird, 2019 ONSC 1712 (Ont. S.C.J.), para. 62). | [11] Frank bears the onus of demonstrating that the settlement ought to be exempt from garnishment (<i>House v. Baird,</i> 2019 ONSC 1712 (Ont. S.C.J.), para. 62).<ref name="House"/> | ||
[12] In 20 Toronto Street Holdings Ltd. v. Coffee, Tea or Me Bakeries Inc. (2001), 2001 CanLII 28048 (ON SC), 53 O.R. (3d) 360 (Ont. S.C.J.) Justice Nordheimer states at para. 5: | [12] In 20 Toronto Street Holdings Ltd. v. Coffee, Tea or Me Bakeries Inc. (2001), 2001 CanLII 28048 (ON SC), 53 O.R. (3d) 360 (Ont. S.C.J.) Justice Nordheimer states at para. 5: | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:The court’s power to make a garnishee order, whether it is an order nisi or an order absolute, is discretionary. A garnishee order is basically an equitable remedy, and it may be refused where the attachment of the debt would work inequitably or unfairly or cause prejudice or injustice to some person or persons other than the judgment creditor. | :The court’s power to make a garnishee order, whether it is an order nisi or an order absolute, is discretionary. A garnishee order is basically an equitable remedy, and it may be refused where the attachment of the debt would work inequitably or unfairly or cause prejudice or injustice to some person or persons other than the judgment creditor. | ||
== | <ref name="Raso"><i>Raso v. Bayne,<i> 2020 ONSC 6654 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jbdh2>, retrieved on 2025-05-01 | ||
==<i>House v. Baird,</i> 2019 ONSC 1712 (CanLII)<ref name=House"/> | |||
[62] Pursuant to Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has the discretion to determine rights, liabilities or any matter in relation to the garnishment. The Baird settlement set damages at $500,000. It does not define the heads of damages breakdown. Baird acknowledges that it is his onus to show that the settlement is exempt from garnishment. | [62] Pursuant to Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has the discretion to determine rights, liabilities or any matter in relation to the garnishment. The Baird settlement set damages at $500,000. It does not define the heads of damages breakdown. Baird acknowledges that it is his onus to show that the settlement is exempt from garnishment. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 30: | ||
[78] The parties were unable to find caselaw to assist with the issue of whether insurance settlements are considered to be “wages” under the Wages Act. However, there are principles found in the caselaw that provide some assistance: | [78] The parties were unable to find caselaw to assist with the issue of whether insurance settlements are considered to be “wages” under the Wages Act. However, there are principles found in the caselaw that provide some assistance: | ||
:i. Income replacement benefits under the SABS are wages within the meaning of the Wages Act: see Lease Truck Inc. v. Serbinek, [2008] O.J. No. 4700 (S.C.). | |||
:ii. Periodic payments to a doctor under OHIP are not wages. The court can consider the debtor’s monthly expenses and designate a portion of OHIP payments as exempt from garnishment, pursuant to Rule 60.08(16): see Hongkong Bank of Canada v. Slesers (1992), 1992 CanLII 7649 (ON SC), 7 O.R. (3d) 117 (S.C.). | |||
:iii. Damages for wrongful dismissal are wages within the meaning of the Wages Act: see Landry (Re) (2000), 2000 CanLII 16846 (ON CA), 135 O.A.C. 381 (C.A.). | |||
<ref name="House"/><i>House v. Baird,</i> 2019 ONSC 1712 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hz4f1>, retrieved on 2025-05-01</ref> | |||
Revision as of 15:19, 1 May 2025
Raso v. Bayne, 2020 ONSC 6654 (CanLII)[1]
[11] Frank bears the onus of demonstrating that the settlement ought to be exempt from garnishment (House v. Baird, 2019 ONSC 1712 (Ont. S.C.J.), para. 62).[2]
[12] In 20 Toronto Street Holdings Ltd. v. Coffee, Tea or Me Bakeries Inc. (2001), 2001 CanLII 28048 (ON SC), 53 O.R. (3d) 360 (Ont. S.C.J.) Justice Nordheimer states at para. 5:
- I start from the basic proposition that garnishment is an equitable remedy and, as suggested by the use of the word “may” in subrule 60.18(16) above, the court may therefore make whatever order it deems just in the particular circumstances of any given case. As stated in the Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th ed., vol. 17 at para. 539:
- The court’s power to make a garnishee order, whether it is an order nisi or an order absolute, is discretionary. A garnishee order is basically an equitable remedy, and it may be refused where the attachment of the debt would work inequitably or unfairly or cause prejudice or injustice to some person or persons other than the judgment creditor.
Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
