HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Manitoba Court of Appeal has held that a bankrupt, who had previously unsuccessfully applied to set aside a bankruptcy order on the ground that the creditor seeking bankruptcy had not applied for leave under The Family Farm Protection Act (Manitoba), could not apply to set aside the bankruptcy order because the bankrupt did not first comply with the conditions prescribed by the Farm Debt Review Act (Canada). The Court held that the bankrupt should have raised applicable of the Farm Debt Mediation Act at the first proceeding, that bringing a second proceeding violated the doctrine of res judicata, and that it was also an abuse of process. [Editor's note: Although the facts in this case are somewhat extreme, the Court's decision is in line with other decisions which require debtors who object to proceedings on the ground that the FDMA has not been complied with, to do so at an early stage in the proceedings.]. (MNP Ltd. v Desrochers, CALN/2018-025, [2018] M.J. No. 249, Manitoba Court of Appeal)
  • A Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has reviewed the law with respect to what a plaintiff must prove to obtain judgment for damages against the owner of domestic livestock, with respect to personal injuries sustained as a result of the acts or omissions of the livestock. The Court concluded that the mere presence of a bull on the plaintiff's land was insufficient to found a successful action in negligence. The Court concluded that although the owner of livestock could be liable for damages based on the common law tort of animal trespass, which is a "strict liability" tort which does not require proof of neglience, the plaintiff must nevertheless establish that the damages are not too remote. The plaintiff also has the burden of showing that domestic animals have a "dangerous or mischievous propensity" which was "known to the animal's keeper". In this case, the claim of a plaintiff farmer/rancher who sustained personal injuries after being struck by his neighbour's Reg Angus Charolais bull was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show that his neighbour failed to exercise due care regarding fence maintenance and that the plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to establish a dangerous or mischievous propensity in the bull that was known to his neighbour. (Moulson v. Hejnar, CALN/2018-026, [2018] A.J. No. 1169, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta)

To read the full article click here

Originally published by LexisNexis

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.