Inherent Jurisdiction: 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 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Cerberus Business Financial, LLC v. B & W Heat Treating Canada, ULC, 2020 ONSC 3781 (CanLII)<ref name="Cerberus"/>== | ==Cerberus Business Financial, LLC v. B & W Heat Treating Canada, ULC, 2020 ONSC 3781 (CanLII)<ref name="Cerberus"/>== | ||
[20] First, there is no jurisprudence directly on point which, in my view, does not assist the Trustee. Second, courts have held that inherent jurisdiction does not operate where Parliament or the legislature has acted and cannot be used so as to contradict a statute or rule: see <b><i>Baxter Student Housing Ltd. v. College Housing Co-operative Ltd., 1975 CanLII 164 (SCC), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 475</b></i><ref name="Baxter"/>, at p. 480 and <b><i>Stephen Francis Podgurski (Re), 2020 ONSC 2552, at para. 69</b></i><ref name="Stephen"/>. I do not see a functional gap or vacuum in s. 38(2) of the CTA. The three-month period is clearly set out. | [20] First, there is no jurisprudence directly on point which, in my view, does not assist the Trustee. Second, <b><u>courts have held that inherent jurisdiction does not operate where Parliament or the legislature has acted and cannot be used so as to contradict a statute or rule:</b></u> see <b><i>Baxter Student Housing Ltd. v. College Housing Co-operative Ltd., 1975 CanLII 164 (SCC), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 475</b></i><ref name="Baxter"/>, at p. 480 and <b><i>Stephen Francis Podgurski (Re), 2020 ONSC 2552, at para. 69</b></i><ref name="Stephen"/>. I do not see a functional gap or vacuum in s. 38(2) of the CTA. The three-month period is clearly set out. | ||
<ref name="Cerberus">Cerberus Business Financial, LLC v. B & W Heat Treating Canada, ULC, 2020 ONSC 3781 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j8bgq>, retrieved on 2020-06-25</ref> | <ref name="Cerberus">Cerberus Business Financial, LLC v. B & W Heat Treating Canada, ULC, 2020 ONSC 3781 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j8bgq>, retrieved on 2020-06-25</ref> | ||
Revision as of 19:09, 25 June 2020
Cerberus Business Financial, LLC v. B & W Heat Treating Canada, ULC, 2020 ONSC 3781 (CanLII)[1]
[20] First, there is no jurisprudence directly on point which, in my view, does not assist the Trustee. Second, courts have held that inherent jurisdiction does not operate where Parliament or the legislature has acted and cannot be used so as to contradict a statute or rule: see Baxter Student Housing Ltd. v. College Housing Co-operative Ltd., 1975 CanLII 164 (SCC), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 475[2], at p. 480 and Stephen Francis Podgurski (Re), 2020 ONSC 2552, at para. 69[3]. I do not see a functional gap or vacuum in s. 38(2) of the CTA. The three-month period is clearly set out.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Cerberus Business Financial, LLC v. B & W Heat Treating Canada, ULC, 2020 ONSC 3781 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j8bgq>, retrieved on 2020-06-25
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Baxter Student Housing Ltd. et al. v. College Housing Co-operative Ltd. et al., 1975 CanLII 164 (SCC), [1976] 2 SCR 475, <http://canlii.ca/t/1z6gt>, retrieved on 2020-06-25
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Stephen Francis Podgurski (Re), 2020 ONSC 2552 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j6sc0>, retrieved on 2020-06-25
