Scope of Authority (Bailiff)

Bailiffs Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.2

2 This Act does not apply to a person while acting as a bailiff under court process. R.S.O. 1990, c. B.2, s. 2.

3 No person, other than a person authorized to act as a bailiff under court process, shall act as a bailiff unless the person is appointed under this Act and is not a person described in clause 3.1 (b) or (c). 2004, c. 19, s. 2 (4).

Costs of Distress Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.41

6 (1) A person who makes a distress shall give a statement in writing signed by the person of the demand and of the costs and expenses of the distress to the person on whose goods the distress was made and a person who makes a seizure under a chattel mortgage or for default in payment of an instalment of principal or interest secured by an instrument under the terms of which the vendor retains the right to take possession of a chattel sold by the vendor for default in payment of an instalment of principal or interest shall give to the person in possession of the goods seized a statement in writing signed by the person making the seizure of the demand and of the costs charged in respect of the seizure and subsequent proceedings. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.41, s. 6 (1).

(2) The person whose goods are distrained or seized or the person authorizing the distress or seizure or any other person interested, upon giving two days notice in writing, may have the costs and expenses of the bailiff or other person making the distress or seizure assessed by the local registrar of the Superior Court of Justice for the area in which the distress or seizure was made. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.41, s. 6 (2); 2006, c. 19, Sched. C, s. 1 (1).

(3) The bailiff or person making the distress or seizure shall furnish the registrar with a statement of the costs and expenses for assessment at the time mentioned in the notice or at such other time as the registrar directs, and, in default of so doing, is not entitled to any costs or expenses. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.41, s. 6 (3).

Emerson v. Ontario (Registrar of Bailiffs), 2009 CanLII 24226 (ON SCDC)

[4] Ms. V.M. and Ms. J.F. were engaged in a business enterprise that used equipment owned by or leased to J.F. The equipment was located at commercial premises that had been leased in the name of V.M.

[5] When the parties decided to terminate their business relationship, a dispute arose over the equipment. While V.M. was out of the country, J.F. used her key to the premises at night and removed a considerable amount of equipment. V.M.’s daughter, who was managing the business in her mother’s absence, was worried that J.F. would return to take out all of the equipment necessary to run the business and, therefore, she had the locks changed.

[6] J.F. received advice from her lawyer about retrieving the balance of the equipment. He advised her that she was within her rights to invoke a self-help remedy and to enter the premises and remove her equipment. She consulted with the appellant for this purpose and he recommended that she obtain a second legal opinion. She sought a second opinion from another lawyer who confirmed that, as going through the court system was a lengthy process, a self-help remedy was lawful and that she had the right to enter the premises and retrieve her equipment, by picking the locks if necessary.