2000 SKQB 579 Q.B.G. A.D. 1999 No. 2019 J.C.S. IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON BETWEEN: 598772 SASKATCHEWAN LTD. and HARMON INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES INC. DEFENDANT G.A. Richards for the plaintiff D.G. Gerecke for the defendant FIAT D.H. WRIGHT J. December 15, 2000 [1] 598772 Saskatchewan Ltd. applies for relief pursuant to s. 81(1) of The Queen’s Bench Act, 1998, S.S. 1998, c. Q-1.01. That allows this Court to direct that a judgment will be paid by instalments and/or over a period of time where it is demonstrated that the judgment debtor requires such relief. [2] The applicant proposed to the respondent that it repay the judgment recovered by the latter as follows: Beginning balance, as per judgment: 122,601.36 October interest 520.64 123,122.00 Awarded costs 7,572.50 Balance October 31, 2000 130,694.50 November 1, 2000 payment 32,894.50 97,800.00 November interest 401.92 December interest 415.32 Balance December 31, 2000 98,617.23 January 1, 2001 payment 33,117.23 65,500.00 January interest 278.15 February interest 251.23 Balance February 28, 2001 66,029.38 March 1, 2001 payment 33,529.38 32,500.00 March interest 138.01 April interest 133.56 Balance April 30, 2001 32,771.58 May 1, 2001 payment 32,771.58 Balance May 1, 2001 0.00 [3] The respondent objects strenuously pointing out that the applicant had plenty of opportunity over the years to pay its obligation and also drawing attention to number of allegations made in Mr. Tait’s affidavits and elsewhere suggesting that the officers of the applicant mismanaged the affairs of the company or re-directed funds which should have been allocated to payment of the interest which is the subject matter of the judgment finally granted. [4] After reviewing all of the circumstances and the relatively short time in which it is proposed the judgment be satisfied I have concluded, somewhat reluctantly, that I should grant the order. It will be granted on the basis outlined in the proposed settlement commencing with a payment to be made within seven days which would have been paid November 1, 2000. The remaining payments set out in the schedule will follow thereafter continuing with January 1, 2001. [5] An officer of the applicant swore that the officers were prepared to infuse $100,000.00 into the company’s treasury if need be to make up any shortfall from funds needed by the company to pay the instalments. In the absence of formal commitment on their part to do so, cannot take that into consideration. [6] Counsel should prepare an order immediately and submit it to me for approval. As indicated it will provide for the instalments suggested in the schedule but with the following changes:- the rate of interest to be paid on the judgment commencing January 1, 2001 should be equivalent to pre-judgment interest and should continue until the judgment is satisfied in full. This will replace the statutory rate of interest provided for under the Interest Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-15. [7] The judgment will provide also for a 5-day grace period and will also provide that in the event any instalment is missed after the passage of the grace period the respondent will be entitled to proceed immediately with enforcement by way of execution, garnishment or any other means it deems appropriate. [8] The cost of this application will be taxed and added to the judgment and will constitute part of the balance to be paid on May 1, 2001. [9] Counsel may apply to me for further directions if need be to see that this matter is dealt with promptly.
FIAT. The numbered company applied for relief pursuant to the Queen's Bench Act s.81(1) allowing the court to direct the judgment to be paid by installments. The creditor objected that the applicant had plenty of opportunity over the years to pay and drew attention to prior allegations of mismanagement or redirection of funds which should have been allocated to the payment of interest. HELD: The payment which should have been paid in November was to be paid within 7 days. The remaining payments set out in the schedule will commence January 2001 with the change in rate of interest from that provided under the Interest Act to one equivalent to pre-judgment interest. A 5 day grace period was allowed after which the respondent was allowed to proceed immediately with enforcement by execution, garnishment or any means it deems appropriate. The taxed cost of this application was added to the judgment and will be part of the balance to be paid on May 1, 2001. Counsel could apply for further directions.