Genge v. Lyngor Development Inc., 2013 NLCA 43

Date: 201306 21 Docket: 13/30 Citation: Genge v. Lyngor Development Inc. , 2013 NLCA 43 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN : GORDON W. GENGE APPLICANT AND : LYNGOR DEVELOPMENT INC. FIRST RESPONDENT AND : CONSOLIDATED CREDIT UNION INC. SECOND RESPONDENT AND Docket: 13/31 BETWEEN : GORDON W. GENGE APPLICANT AND : LYNGOR DEVELOPMENT INC. FIRST RESPONDENT AND : CONSOLIDATED CREDIT UNION INC. SECOND RESPONDENT AND : PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS INC., as Receiver of the assets, undertakings and properties

of LynGor Developments Inc. THIRD RESPONDENT Coram: Rowe J.A. Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division 201105G0165 Application Heard: May 28, 2013 Decision Rendered: June 21, 2013 Counsel for Gordon W.

Genge: Self Represented Counsel for LynGor Development Inc.: No Appearance Counsel for Consolidated Credit Union Inc.: Tom Kendell Counsel for PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc: Tom Kendell Rowe J.A.: [ 1 ] Gordon Genge has applied to have reinstated two applications for leave to appeal, which applications were deemed abandoned pursuant to Rule 57.20(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 . [ 2 ] Mr. Genge operated a company called Lyngor Developments Inc. (“Lyngor”). Lyngor owed money to Consolidated Credit Union Ltd. (“Consolidated Credit”).

When Lyngor encountered financial difficulties, Consolidated Credit sought to recover what it was owed by Lyngor. [ 3 ] PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (“Pricewaterhouse”) were appointed receivers for Lyngor. In February 2012, Pricewaterhouse applied to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , RSC, c.B-3 and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules for an order approving the distribution of certain assets and its discharge as receiver. The order was granted by a judge of the Trial Division on March 7, 2012. [ 4 ] On March 20, 2012, Mr.

Genge sought leave to appeal this order, as well as another decision by the Trial Division judge denying an application to stay the appointment of Pricewaterhouse as receiver. On April 3, 2013, the two matters not having progressed for more than a year, they were deemed abandoned. Mr. Genge is seeking to have them reinstated. Mr. Genge refers to difficulty in having transcripts prepared. [ 5 ] Deemed abandonment is intended to clear out appeals that otherwise would “sit on the books” for years. There must be finality in proceedings. Mr.

Genge has not shown an adequate basis for me to exercise my discretion to reinstate these matters. The application is denied. The Respondents will have their costs on a party and party basis. __________________________________ M. H. Rowe, J.A.