Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Discretionary authority of the court to revive annulled consumer proposals under section 66.31(9) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

• Relevance of the debtor’s medical and financial hardship in assessing reasons for default

• Importance of timely action by the debtor and administrator following annulment

• Creditor notification and absence of opposition influencing the court’s decision

• Demonstration of good faith through completed payments and cooperation

• Sufficiency of affidavit evidence detailing the debtor’s circumstances and financial status

Background of the consumer proposal
Marion Patricia Amos filed a consumer proposal on June 3, 2020, under Part III, Division II of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), administered by D. & A. MacLeod Company Ltd. In May 2023, Ms. Amos experienced serious health issues that led to financial strain and eventually caused her to default on the proposal. As a result, the consumer proposal was annulled on August 28, 2023, with formal notice of annulment issued on September 7, 2023.

Efforts to revive the proposal
Immediately following the annulment, Ms. Amos took steps to revive the proposal. Beginning on September 13, 2023, she worked with the Administrator and provided post-dated cheques covering bi-monthly payments until March 1, 2025. A final lump sum payment of $3,575.00 was made on February 14, 2025, fulfilling the terms of the original proposal. The March 1, 2025 cheque was voided, having been replaced by the lump sum payment. Ms. Amos, aged 70, also submitted a sworn affidavit outlining the reasons for her default and her financial circumstances.

Procedural history and court’s assessment
The motion to revive the consumer proposal was first heard on March 10, 2025, before Associate Justice Perron, who adjourned the matter due to insufficient supporting materials. Following that adjournment, the Administrator submitted a Supplementary Report, including the debtor’s affidavit and updated financial information. Notices were sent to all creditors on March 10, 2025, under section 149 of the BIA, and no additional claims or objections were received.

Legal framework and discretionary criteria
Section 66.31(9) of the BIA allows an administrator to apply to the court to revive a consumer proposal that was deemed annulled. The provision gives the court discretion to grant such relief if appropriate in the circumstances. The court referred to case law including Re Zahrawi, Re Cumberbatch, and Little (Re), which identify relevant factors such as the reason for annulment, degree of proposal completion, debtor’s good faith, and whether creditors would be prejudiced.

Court’s conclusion and order
Associate Justice Kamal concluded that the proposal should be revived. The court found that Ms. Amos had acted in good faith, completed all payments under the proposal, promptly sought revival, and that there was no creditor opposition or new debts or assets to complicate the matter. Satisfied with the evidentiary record, including the debtor’s affidavit and the Administrator’s report, the court granted the motion on May 16, 2025, reviving the consumer proposal originally filed on June 3, 2020.