Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Creditors enforced a subpoena to debtor under Rule 13-3 to examine Ms. Salloum’s capacity to pay a judgment debt.

• A costs award of $24,027.32 (including interest and disbursements) remains unpaid by the debtors.

• The debtor, Ms. Salloum, presented minimal income, no property ownership, and substantial personal debts.

• The court found that despite low income, Salloum had no significant living expenses and was prioritizing other debts.

• The court ordered monthly instalment payments of $250 starting April 1, 2025.

• Adjournment of examination granted, with leave for creditors to resume after March 1, 2026.

Facts and outcome of the case

The facts of the case

Paul Smith (trading as Smiths IP), alongside Andy and Karen Chow, were successful in a prior legal proceeding and obtained a costs award against Nuha Salloum and the CICC College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Corp. This judgment, dated February 8, 2024, resulted in a debt totaling $24,027.32. As of the hearing, no payments had been made by the debtors. The claimants invoked Rule 13-3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules to enforce the debt through a "subpoena to debtor" examination, compelling Ms. Salloum to disclose her financial situation under oath.

During the examination process, which began before Registrar Gaily and was continued before Associate Judge Harper, the focus was primarily on Ms. Salloum’s personal capacity to pay. Evidence presented revealed that Salloum, now 65 years old, had a monthly income of $1,165 composed of public benefits and a small disability pension. She disclosed no property ownership and claimed to live in a condominium owned by her daughter without incurring any living costs. Furthermore, Salloum admitted to having deliberately avoided owning assets since 2006 to avoid legal exposure.

She also declared outstanding debts, including $70,000 in credit card liabilities and $185,000 linked to a mortgage her daughter obtained to cover Salloum’s legal fees. Salloum was unclear on the details of the promissory note involved in this transaction. It was revealed that she makes biweekly payments of $441 toward that debt. Notably, Salloum did not dispute the fact that a judgment was issued against her but instead argued that she should not have to pay due to disagreements over liability. The court reminded her that a Rule 13-3 hearing is not the appropriate forum to challenge an existing judgment.

The outcome

Despite acknowledging her limited income, the court determined that Salloum’s essential expenses were negligible. She did not pay for rent, groceries, or other living expenses, which were all covered by her daughter. Additionally, she had access to potential sources of financial support, such as spousal support from her estranged husband and potential proceeds from litigation related to her mother’s estate (though the value of that claim remains uncertain).

Given these circumstances, the court rejected the notion that Salloum lacked the ability to contribute toward the debt. It found that she was improperly prioritizing repayment of the $185,000 debt over the court-ordered costs. Accordingly, the judge ordered Salloum to begin monthly payments of $250 starting April 1, 2025. The court also fixed disbursements at $607.29 and permitted the creditors to reinitiate examination proceedings any time after March 1, 2026, should Salloum’s financial situation change. Her formal signature on the resulting order was waived.