J. Bankruptcy No. 333 Estate No. 018901 J.C.R. IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN IN BANKRUPTCY BETWEEN: SASKATCHEWAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -and- JOHN JOSEPH KOLODY -and- PEAT MARWICK THORNE INC. TRUSTEE Jodi Vaughn, for Doris Kolody Fred Zinkhan, for S.E.D.C.O. FIAT MAURICE J. HERAUF, November 13, 1996 Registrar in Bankruptcy In written decision dated September 11, 1996, Madam Justice Gunn awarded costs of the application to Doris Kolody. In addition, Mrs. Kolody was awarded taxable costs of the abortive examination of July 22, 1996. Prior to the taxation proceeding, a preliminary issue was raised by counsel for S.E.D.C.O. concerning the interpretation of Rule 566 (o) of the Queen’s Bench Rules of Court. Counsel for S.E.D.C.O. argued that the costs referred to were awarded in interlocutory proceedings and should not be taxed until the final determination of the action or proceeding. In essence, he contends that the taxation is premature. The facts are clearly set out in the Judgment of Gunn, J. and need not be repeated here in detail. The proceeding at issue is bankruptcy matter. John Kolody is the bankrupt and also the husband of Doris Kolody. S.E.D.C.O. obtained an order pursuant to Section 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to examine Doris Kolody. The scope of the examination has been an issue and resulted in the court application referred to. The examination has not progressed beyond few preliminary questions and it is obvious that it will have to be continued. have reluctantly concluded that S.E.D.C.O.’s argument has merit. say reluctantly because the matter has been ongoing for some time and sense impatience from the court and frustration from Mrs. Kolody. conclude that the action is certainly proceeding within the scope of the rule. My only concern relates to whether Mrs. Kolody is “party” within the meaning of the rule. She is not party to the proceeding in the true sense of the word as it involves her husband and S.E.D.C.O. However, I am of the opinion that since the examination of Mrs. Kolody is not concluded, there may be further applications to the court which could affect the issue of costs as it relates to Mrs. Kolody. It’s clear from these reasons that I am prepared to have the taxation proceed as soon as the examination of Mrs. Kolody is concluded. In the interests of expediting the taxation at that time, can advise the parties that am of the opinion that Column of the tariff is the appropriate column for the costs to be taxed under. In addition, am also of the opinion that Mrs. Kolody is entitled to $50.00 per day, for three days, which represents day to travel to and from Regina, as well as the day to attend the actual examination. Registrar in Bankruptcy
The bankrupt's wife was examined by SEDCO, pursuant to s. 163 of The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Following the abortive examination, she was awarded taxable costs. Prior to the taxation proceeding, SECDO raised an issue with respect to s. 566(o) of the Queen's Bench Rules, arguing that the costs referred to were awarded in interlocutory proceedings an should not be taxed until the final determination of the action. HELD: The Court held that since the examination was ongoing, there could be further applications to the Court that would affect the issue of costs. The taxation was ordered to occur after the examination was concluded.