Re Bannikova, 2023 ONSC 5131

Citation: Re Bannikova 2023 ONSC 5131 Court File No. 31-2368680 DATE: 2023/09/11 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF ELENA BANNIKOVA OF THE CITY OF NEWMARKET IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

SUMMARY ADMINISTRATION BEFORE: Associate Justice Ilchenko, Registrar in Bankruptcy COUNSEL: J.

Russo, LIT (“ Russo ”) for Moving Party Trustee Russo Corp. (the “ Trustee ”) Elena Filatova, (“ Filatova ”) on her own behalf Discharged Bankrupt Elena Bannikova not appearing (“ Bannikova ” or the “ Bankrupt ”) Superintendent of Bankruptcy not opposing and not appearing HEARD: Motion Opposing Trustee Taxation and Discharge adjourned on March 15, 2022 to June 28, 2022 – further written materials provided by Trustee – Negotiations of Costs award requested to be attempted by the Court between Filatova and Trustee not successful.

As no agreement was reached by the parties, after considerable time was given to the Trustee and Filatova to agree as to costs, determination of Taxation and Discharge of Trustee and costs was necessitated. ENDORSEMENT

I) Nature of Relief Sought by the Trustee [ 1 ] When this opposed taxation, in a

Summary Administration Bankruptcy Estate, initially came before me on March 15, 2022, I made the following endorsement (the “ First Endorsement ”): “Adjourned Sine Die The Trustee is seeking her discharge and has filed extensive materials. Ms. Filatova, belatedly also filed extensive materials and is opposing the Trustee's discharge, as a purported "interested person" within the meaning of s.41(5) of the BIA . I note that the Jurisprudence provides that an "Interested Person" means for the purposes of that

section a person entitled to notice of the Taxation under the provisions of s.152(5), being creditors with proven claims. Ms. Filatova had her proof of claim disallowed by the Trustee and did not appeal from the disallowance, after consulting with Mr. Harris. Ms. Russo is seeking costs from Ms. Filatova. I have adjourned this hearing to permit Ms. Russo to prepare a

summary of the basis on which she is entitled to costs from Ms. Filatova, and the quantification of those costs, as evidenced by dockets. Ms. Russo is to prepare and serve her supplementary Motion Record with that information on Ms. Filatova, well in advance of any scheduled date to rehear this discharge. When the hearing date is available Ms.

Russo shall also serve those supplementary taxation materials in accordance with s.152(5). [ 2 ] When this opposed taxation recommenced on June 28, 2022, after being confronted with hundreds of more pages of materials filed by Filatova, I made the following additional endorsement (the “ Second Endorsement ”): “I had hoped that my last disposition of this matter would deal with the outstanding issues, but in response to the Trustee filing its dockets as requested by me, Ms. Filatova filed an additional approximately 400 pages of material.

As I pointed out in my endorsement, Ms. Filatova has NO standing to oppose this taxation, having complained to the OSB that the Trustee had not disallowed her claim, and when the OSB instructed the Trustee to disallow her claim, did not appeal. Thus in addition to causing further expense to the Trustee in responding to the OSB complaint about failing to disallow Ms. Filatova's claim and dealing with the opposition, she voluntarily utterly sabotaged her own legal position, for reasons unknown. In these materials Ms.

Filatova attempts to reduce the Trustee's fees claimed in this estate, claiming instead that the time was really spent in the Igor Bannikov estate 31-2375149. However what is really revealed is that Ms. Filatova has created utter carnage in the administration of BOTH bankruptcy estates, having made it appears a total of EIGHT (8) complaints to the OSB, which to my review have all been unsubstantiated and rejected by the OSB, has attempted to sue the Trustee at least once, but failed to obtain leave from Justice Dietrich under s.215 of the BIA , but Ms.

Filatova did succeed in having $5000 in costs assessed against her, which she paid to the Trustee's counsel. She did all this somehow as an inspector of the Igor Bannikov estate, in breach of her fiduciary duties as an inspector required to act on behalf of all of the creditors. Attempting to sue the Trustee and having a costs award assessed against her is evidence of the utter conflict of interest she put herself in as an inspector, and she should have been removed as an inspector of the Igor Bannikov estate under s.116. In this Estate Ms.

Filatova has also brought a Motion to try to compel the Trustee to commence criminal, and other proceedings, including Fintrac, and complained to the OSB about the Trustee's failure to do so. The Trustee advises that she has been discharged as Trustee in the Igor Bannikov estate, despite the opposition of Ms. Filatova. Igor Bannikov is an undischarged Bankrupt, Elena Bannikova is a discharged Bankrupt. As that estate is completed, Ms. Filatova is not an inspector of that Igor Bannikov estate, as she claims in her latest tome of Court Materials.

It should be noted that the Trustee in this Estate has received a positive Comments Letter from the OSB on the Statement of Receipts and Disbursements that she is trying to get approved, to obtain her discharge. The OSB has approved all of the disbursements in this Elena Filatova Estate, in the total amount of TWO THOUSEND ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY NINE DOLLARS AND THIRTY THREE CENTS ($2,169.33) of which the Trustee's fees comprise ONE THOUSEND FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE DOLLARS AND THIRTY THREE CENTS ($1,539.14) inclusive of HST. That is what the Ms. Filatova is trying to prevent.

The detailed dockets that the Trustee has submitted, and that Ms. Filatova has parsed and commented on, total unbilled Work in Progress that the Trustee is NOT seeking to have approved and paid, given that the total recoveries in this estate are $2,410.78, total TWENTY FOUR THOUSEND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS AND TWENTY FIVE CENTS. This astonishing amount of unbilled and uncollectable fees is largely time dealing with Ms. Filatova, according to the Trustee, which is disputed by Ms. Filatova, who has made comments on each entry.

This behavior cannot continue, and I fear that the years of consequence-free activities in these estates engaged in by Ms. Filatova have emboldened her. There now have to be consequences. Significant Consequences. I have asked the Trustee to go through Ms. Filatova's latest comments and advise me her position as to whether the time charged is for the Igor Bannikov Estate or the Elena Bannikova Estate, and provide me with the numbers for the costs of responding to ALL of the

OSB complaints and motions and other activity brought or engaged in by Ms. Filatova in this Estate or that have affected this Estate. If the Trustee could also provide me with all of the OSB response letters to the assorted complaints in one package, that would be helpful. I would ask that the Trustee serve this documentation on Ms. Filatova, and the OSB, and provide an update of the costs of having to do so, again. I have read the hundreds of pages of Ms. Filatova's materials already uploaded and do not need to read more.

I also raised the issue of whether a revised Statement of Receipts and Disbursements would have to be approved by me and the OSB once I determine how much Ms. Filatova will have to compensate the Trustee, in order to compensate the Trustee for the additional costs that the Trustee has had to incur as a result of Ms. Filatova's antics. The Trustee advised she will consult with her OR on the proper procedure. Once I have those documents I will make my decision on the Costs that Ms. Filatova WILL BE PAYING to the Trustee, unless the Trustee and Ms. Filatova settle that costs amount in the interim.

If the Trustee can provide me with this documentation by July 31, I will provide an Order expeditiously, as there will not be need for yet another Zoom hearing, as I have determined that Ms. Filatova is not listening to me.” [ 3 ] In the hopes that after my blunt Second Endorsement there would be some kind of realization by Filatova of the peril she was in, I let things sit for an extended period to see if Ms. Filatova, out of a sense of self-preservation, would see sense and come to a settlement with the Trustee as to costs. [ 4 ] Ms. Russo has confirmed to me, that after discussions with Ms.

Filatova, there will be no settlement of the Costs and that a costs determination will have to be made by the Court. [ 5 ] At each appearance, I have strongly urged Filatova to obtain legal counsel, that could provide advice to her about the dire costs consequences that could occur if she continued with her conduct in relation to the Trustee. Filatova ignored this advice as well and continued to file voluminous materials. [ 6 ] All underlined text in these reasons is emphasis added by me for these reasons. [ 7 ] The Court has considered all materials and arguments raised by the parties.

The Court has also read all of the materials filed by all of the parties on the Motion to Discharge the Trustee in the Bannikov Estate, in the Discharge hearing for Bannikova, and in the Motion by Filatova to obtain leave to sue the Trustee in the Bannikov Estate. Any failure by the Court to refer in these reasons to specific arguments and materials raised does not reflect that the Court has not considered those arguments.

The Bannikov and Bannikova Bankruptcies [ 8 ] To put some context on the issues arising that must be considered in this Costs Endorsement, and to provide facts for the evaluation of the proportionality test of granting costs, the facts of the underlying Igor Bannikov estate 31-2375149 (“ Bannikov ”) and the Bankruptcy Estates of his wife Bannikova, must be set out. [ 9 ] As an explanation of the names of this Bankrupt and her husband for a non-Slavic audience, Russian, like French, has gendered tenses for verbs, words and names, and women often have an “A” added after their last name when being formally referred to.

Hence Bannikova was the wife (or allegedly was at material times preceding the Bankruptcy) of Bannikov. [ 10 ] The evidence of the Trustee, which should be treated with deference by the Court, in the Affidavit of Joanne Russo sworn February 10, 2022 (the “ Russo Affidavit ”) stated: “2. As the records will also reflect, Russo Corp. was the Licensed Insolvency Trustee charged with the administration of the bankruptcy of the Bankrupt's spouse, Igor Bannikov (hereafter referred to as "BANNIKOV") - Court file# 31-2375149.

Although the two matters are separate filings and estates, they each had/have related circumstances and information as you will see further in my Affidavit. 3. Despite not being a creditor of the Bankrupt, Ms. Filatova served her Notice of Opposition to Discharge of Trustee pursuant to Section 41 (5) of the BIA as an interested party. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" to this, my affidavit, is a copy of the Notice of Opposition to Discharge of Trustee dated February 19 th 2021.

4. The Notice of Opposition to Discharge [sic] of Trustee in this matter alleges that the LIT failed to provide Reports to the Crown Attorney for offences under

section 198 and 201 of the BIA and to Fintrac for investigations of possible money laundering committed by the Bankrupt in 2016 - 2018 years. 5. On or about February 18 th 2020, Ms. Filatova brought forward a Motion to this Honourable Court under section 205(3) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the " BIA "), for an Order to direct the LIT to initiate proceedings for the prosecution of the Bankrupt for offences under this Act and under other statute in connection with the bankrupt. A copy of the Motion Record is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "B", to this, my affidavit. 6.

A copy of the LIT's Responding Motion Record dated February 28 th 2020 is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "C" . The motion was heard on March 10 th 2020 and dismissed. Attached and marked Exhibit "D" , to this my affidavit, is the endorsement of Master Mills (as was then) dated March 10 th 2020. 7. Ms. Filatova also filed a complaint with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, the ("OSB"). On April 26 th 2021, the OSB provided its response letter to the complaint raised by Ms. Filatova. Attached and marked as Exhibit "E" , to this my Affidavit, is a copy of their Response letter. 8.

As stated earlier in this, my affidavit, the matter of the Bankrupt and in the matter of the bankruptcy of BANNIKOV, are separate filings and estates but they each have related circumstances and information. And although the Notice of Opposition to Discharge in this matter does not provide a history of activities during the estate administration, the LIT feels it is important that this Honourable Court receive an overview on the behaviour of Ms. Filatova throughout this process, not only in this administration but also in the administration of the bankrupt's spouse (BANNIKOV). 9. The allegations made by Ms.

Filatova in her grounds for Notice of Opposition to Discharge of Trustee in this matter were also made by Ms. Filatova in her Notice of Opposition to Discharge of Trustee in the BANNIKOV estate. 10. A motion for LIT Discharge in the matter of BANNIKOV was heard on June 1 st 2021. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit "F" , to this, my affidavit, is a copy of the Order and Reasons for Decision as issued by Associate Justice Jean, dated September 1 st 2021, in the BANNIKOV Matter. 11. Ms.

Filatova continued to take the same position with respect to the Notice of Opposition to Discharge of Trustee in this matter despite receiving the Decision as issued by Associate Justice Jean dated September 1 st 2021. The LIT informed Ms. Filatova that her continuing actions in both estates has caused the estates a significant amount of unpaid LIT fees and out of pocket and legal costs to which the LIT has no funds in the estate. Ms. Filatova continues to ignore this very issue. 12. The Bankrupt also informs us that Ms. Filatova has threatened to commence criminal proceedings post discharge.

We are unaware if in fact these proceedings have been commenced. This has caused undue grief to the Bankrupt and unnecessary expense that the Bankrupt simply cannot afford. 13. On January 14 th 2022, a Positive Comment Letter was issued by the OSB. A copy is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "G" , to this, my affidavit. 14. On January 22 nd 2022, the LIT served on all Creditors in the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Elena Bannikova, a Notice of Deemed Taxation of Trustees Account and Deemed Discharge of Trustee. The Affidavit of Service is attached at Exhibit "H" , to this, my affidavit. 15.

On January 26 th 2022, the LIT filed with the Court a request for a Motion date by Zoom for an Application for Taxation of the LIT's accounts and Discharge of LIT in this estate. The court provided the LIT with the next available dates. The dates were canvassed by the LIT and Ms. Filatova. Ms. Filatova consented to March 15 th 2022. An amended Hearing Request Form was submitted to the Court for scheduling. A copy of the final, fully executed Court Hearing Request Form, dated January 27 th 2022 is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "I" to this, my affidavit. 16.

On February 10th 2022 the LIT served a Notice of Motion - Returnable March 15ᵗʰ 2022 to the Opposing party. 17. It is my view that the Opposition to Discharge of the Trustee is unwarranted. The actions by Ms. Filatova have been frivolous and vexatious. Many unmeritorious claims have been made against the LIT. The LIT has successfully defended the motions Ms. Filatova has brought forward. The OSB accepted the bankruptcy filing and has supported the LIT in response to the several complaints raised by Ms.

Filatova - all of which required a substantial amount of time and resources to reply to and in conclusion, each case has been closed. The estate is without funds, the LIT has suffered a significant loss. The LIT will be seeking costs as against Ms. Filatova equivalent to the maximum tariff permissible in a

summary administration. To date, the LIT has incurred over $25,000.00 in billable time because of Ms. Filatova’s actions. 18. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit “J ” to this, my affidavit, is a copy of the Trial Balance Sheet and a copy of the General Ledger. The OSB has issued a positive comment letter in this estate and as such, the LIT’s accounts should be deemed taxed and the LIT to be discharged. The LIT will be seeking costs as against Ms. Filatova equivalent to the tariff permissible in a

summary administration. To date, the LIT has incurred over $25,000.00 in billable time as a result of Ms. Filatova actions.” [ 11 ] Filatova opposed the Taxation of the Trustee’s Statement of Receipts and Disbursements dated December 7, 2021 (the “ SRD ”), and opposed the Trustee’s discharge in the Bannikova Estate on the following grounds in her “Notice of Opposition to Discharge of Trustee” dated February 19, 2021 (the “ Filatova Bannikova Discharge Opposition ”):

“Take notice that Elena Filatova, an interested person, hereby opposes the discharge of the Trustee, pursuant to subsection 41(5) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the " BIA ") on the following among other grounds: 1. Equitable Bank, a first mortgage company, filed their Proof of Claim for $682,873 but the Trustee paid $701,453 to this creditor which is exceeded for $18,580, the Trustee must provide returning this money back to the Estate for the benefit of all creditors. (Proof of Claim of Equitable Bank; LIT's Supplementary s.170 Report, filed). 2.

The Trustee paid $222,085 to Benson Custodian Corporation, a second mortgage company, which did not file any claim. According to 124 (1) of BIA - "Every creditor shall prove his claim, and a creditor who does not prove his claim is not entitled to share in any distribution that may be made." Therefore the Trustee must provide returning this money back to the Estate for the benefit of all creditors. (LIT's Supplementary s.170 Report). 3.

During the Examination under Oath by Official Receiver, the Bankrupt disclosed that she had transferred $50,000 from her Royal Bank account to an unknown party in Russia a year before the bankruptcy (LIT's Supplementary s.170 Report, Form 82, s.6 (b)). The Trustee did not perform any investigation of this transfer with Royal Bank. This transaction must be void according to s. 4(1) of Assignments and Preferences. The Trustee must provide returning this money to the Estate for the benefit of creditors. 4.

During the Examination, the Bankrupt disclosed that she had entered into a financial arrangement to preferentially pay the $9,500 owed to her daughter. (LIT's s.170 Supplementary Report, s. 6(b)). According to s. 4(2) of Assignments and Preferences Act if a debtor cannot pay their creditors and makes a transfer or payment favouring one particular creditor, that transfer or payment is considered a fraudulent preference and is void, thereby the $9,500 payment made by the Bankrupt to her daughter must be void and the Trustee must provide returning this money to the Estate for the benefit of creditors. 5.

During the Examination, the Bankrupt indicated that she had owned of¼ interest in a property know as Komarova 9, Unit 37, Orenburg Region, City of Novotroitsk, Russia. This property was sold after the initial bankruptcy event for approximately $20,000. (LIT's Supplementary s.170 Report, Form 82, s. 6(b)). The Trustee must provide returning of the corresponding part of the money to the Estate for the benefit of creditors. 6.

During the Examination, the Bankrupt confirmed that she had transferred $343,900 from her joined account to her personal undisclosed account to hide the money from her spouse (Revised LIT's s.170 Supplementary Report, Examination of Bankrupt by Official Receiver, question 49). But by this action, the Bankrupt also had hidden the money from her creditors and others. During two years before the bankruptcy, the Bankrupt had been concealing and hiding money from the joined account to her personal account to move the funds out of reach of her potential creditors and creditors of her spouse.

Those transactions must be void according to s.2 of Fraudulent Preference Act F.29 and to s. 4(1) of Assignments and Preferences. The Trustee must provide returning this money to the Estate for the benefit of creditors. 7. For the bankruptcy, the Bankrupt disclosed a Royal Bank account #05172-5054663 joined with her spouse with a $0 balance at the date of the bankruptcy event. But during the Examination the Bankrupt disclosed that she owns other accounts. (Revised LIT's s.170 Supplementary Report, Examination of Bankrupt by Official Receiver, questions 23, 24).

The Trustee must investigate the other bank accounts of the Bankrupt for the benefit of creditors. 8. Pursuant Order 31-2375149 from August 20, 2019, according to Way to Health Clinic management Examination, the Bankrupt had been receiving money from the Clinic. (LIT's Supplementary s.170 Repo1t, Minutes of Examination, questions 15 and 17). The Trustee must investigate this source of income of the Bankrupt for the benefit of creditors. 9. The Bankrupt had taken a $210,000 loan one year before the bankruptcy and had a $0 balance at the bankruptcy event.

The Trustee must investigate where the money went to. (Revised LIT's s.170 Supplementary Report, Royal Bank transactions of account 05172- 5054663) 10. According to s.4 (

i) of LIT's Supplementary s.170 Report, the Bankrupt has made payments in respect of the agreed-upon LIT's tees in the amount of $2,025. But the Bankrupt at the Examination confirmed that she did not pay and will not pay the Trustee anything. (Revised LIT's s.170 Supplementary Report, Examination of Bankrupt by Official Receiver, questions 59, 60). The Trustee has to clarity this issue. 11. During Court hearings on February 18, 2020, No.31-2368680, the Trustee confirmed that she had sent reports to Crown Attorney for offences under sections 198 (1) (a, c,

f) and 201(3) of the Act; to the FINTRAC for investigation of possible money laundering commuted by the Bankrupt in 2016-18 years; to the CRA with a request of audit for the Bankrupt's taxes for 2016-2018 years. But the Trustee misled the Court because she was not able to provide a date of the delivery and the packages were not done properly as it was reported to the Court. The Trustee must follow the Court decision, repeat the packages to the authorities, and provide clear delivery confirmation. I'm asking the court to refuse the discharge of the Trustee till the mentioned above issues in the management of the Estate of Elena Bannikova are fixed.” [ 12 ] As this is a

Summary Administration Bankruptcy Estate, this hearing occurred under the procedure in Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rule 65 for

Summary Administration Bankruptcy Estates where an objection has been made. Statement of Receipts and Disbursements in Bannikova Estate being opposed by Filatova: [ 13 ] Again, to put context on this dispute, the total proven unsecured creditors in the Bannikova

Summary Administration Bankruptcy Estate (now) total $107,043.07 and the sole remaining proven secured creditor being the claim of Nissan Canada Finance totaling $30,405.58 for a car loan, the mortgagees on the home jointly owned by Bannikov and Bannikova at 64 Savage Road,

Newmarket (“ 64 Savage ”) having been paid from the sales proceeds. [ 14 ] The remaining unsecured creditors of Bannikova are chiefly Royal Bank of Canada (totaling $58,695.35 for bank loans and credit cards), TD Canada Trust ($12,447.16 bank line of credit), CIBC ($30,120.58 – credit card) and Canadian Tire ($5,779.98 – credit card). [ 15 ] The only assets realized in the Bannikova Estate were a pre-Bankruptcy income tax refund of $34.29 and post-bankruptcy tax refund of $348.79.

The Bankrupt made a voluntary payment towards fees of $2,025.00. [ 16 ] The following Notes were provided in the SRD being taxed: Furniture - Furniture 3,000.00 The LIT is satisfied that the furniture is exempt pursuant to the Provisions of The Ontario Executions Act. Motor Vehicles - Automobile - 2016 - Nissan - Rogue - 5N1AT2MV3GC892164 32,346.37 The LIT is satisfied that the automobile is full secured and there is NIL equity for the benefit of the estate.

Personal Effects - Personal Effects 3,000.00 The LIT is satisfied that the personal effects are exempt pursuant to the Provisions of The Ontario Executions Act. Real Property or Immovable - House - Newmarket - 64 Savage 980,000.00 The Bankrupt, jointly with her spouse, Igor Bannikova (“Bannikov”) held title to the Property located at 64 Savage Road, Newmarket, Ontario (the “Property”). The Property was sold on May 8, 2018 for $980,000.00. After factoring secured mortgages registered on title, the Estate realized NIL from the sale proceeds.

Equitable Bank held a first mortgage over the Property in the amount of $701,453.39. Equitable Bank filed a proof of claim which was subsequently satisfied and the first mortgage was discharged from title. The Property was encumbered by a second mortgage in favour of Benson Custodian Corporation in the amount of $222,085.03. From the remaining closing proceeds of the Transaction, the second mortgage was discharged from the Property. Benson Custodian Corporation did not file a claim in the Bankruptcy.

Taxes - Debtor/Bankrupt - Post - Federal - 2018 0.00 The LIT has completed the Bankrupts pre and post tax filings and satisfied that it has realized any refunds for the benefit of the estate. [ 17 ] The Total receipts in the Bannikova Estate were $2,410.78. The total disbursements are $2,169.33 with a total distribution, before Levy, of $241.45. [ 18 ] The disbursements consisted of Trustees fees calculated on the basis of the

Summary Administration Tariff of $1,539.14 , with the remaining $630.19 consisting of counselling fees, fees paid to the Official Receiver and the Court, a $100.00 administrative disbursement and HST. [ 19 ] The unbilled WIP that the Trustee reports that she has incurred as a result of Filatova’s conduct in the Bannikova Estate is $24,220.25 , or approximately 15 times the amount chargeable under the Tariff.

The Trustee seeks repayment of some of these costs on the basis of the Filatova’s conduct. [ 20 ] Filatova opposes the costs award, the approval of the Trustee’s SRD in the Bannikova Estate, and the Trustee’s discharge. [ 21 ] On January 14, 2022 the Superintendent issued a Positive Comments Letter regarding the SRD. The Superintendent did not oppose the approval of the SRD or the Discharge of the Trustee in the Bannikova Estate. [ 22 ] The Trustee has had to file 1,823 pages of materials defending herself on this Motion.

Filatova has filed 1,675 pages. [ 23 ] All to approve an SRD with $2,410.78 in disbursements. [ 24 ] But having read these materials it became abundantly clear to me the challenges that the Trustee has faced in dealing with the behavior of Filatova in an estate with no assets. [ 25 ] Of note, for reasons I will subsequently explain in detail, Filatova is not a creditor with a proven claim in the Bannikova Estate, only the Bannikov Estate .

Her claim in the Bannikova Estate was finally and irreversibly disallowed by the Trustee. [ 26 ] No actual proven creditors of the Bannikova Estate have opposed the approval of the SRD or the discharge of the Trustee.

Discharge of the Bankrupt, Bannikova: [ 27 ] Bannikova was discharged by AJ Jean on August 29, 2019. The Conditional Discharge Order imposed the following terms: 1. THIS COURT ORDERS THAT the discharge of the Bankrupt be and is hereby suspended for a period of six (6) months concurrent, such that the Bankrupt shall be discharged from bankruptcy on March 1, 2020. 2.

THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT the Bankrupt shall execute an Undertaking whereby she agrees she will not use, possess, apply for, acquire or obtain any form of unsecured credit for a period of five years from the date hereof. [ 28 ] These conditions were met by the Bankrupt Bannikova, and AJ Jean granted an unconditional discharge to Bannikova on September 17, 2021.

Filatova raised some similar objections to discharge of this Trustee in Bannikov Estate- Failed: [ 29 ] Associate Justice Jean, in her endorsement dated June 1, 2021 discharging the Trustee as Trustee of the Bannikov Estate (the “ Bannikov Trustee Discharge Endorsement ”) decided as follows, dealing with some grounds of opposition that are similar to certain of the grounds of opposition by Filatova in the Filatova Bannikova Discharge Opposition: “For the reasons that follow, the trustee is hereby discharged. The trustee applied for discharge on June 1, 2021.

The trustee's discharge was opposed by the creditor, Elena Filatova (the "creditor"). The creditor is also the sole inspector of the estate. The creditor's objection to discharge and response on the motion in many respects seeks the advice and direction of the court. This court performs an adjudicative function and does not provide advice to creditors as to the conduct of bankruptcy proceedings. The creditor was informed that she should seek her own legal advice pertaining to matters of which she is concerned. I turn to the merits of the trustee's application for discharge.

Subsection 41(1) of the BIA provides: "When a trustee has completed the duties required of him with respect to the administration of the property of a bankrupt, he shall apply to the court for a discharge." Subsection 41(2) of the BIA provides: "The court may discharge a trustee with respect to any estate on full administration thereof or, for sufficient cause, before full administration." Subsection 41(4) of the BIA provides: "When a trustee's accounts have been approved by the inspectors and taxed by the court and all objections, applications, oppositions, motions and appeals have been settled or dispose of and all dividends have been paid, the estate is deemed to be fully administered." Subsection 41(5) of the BIA provides that "Any interested person desiring to object to the discharge of the trustee shall... file notice of objection with the registrar of the court setting out the reasons for the objection and serve a copy of the notice on the trustee.

Subsection 41(6) of the BIA provides that "the court shall consider the objection filed and may grant or withhold a discharge accordingly or give such directions as it may deem proper in the circumstances. Here, the creditor/inspector has approved the trustee's SRD and, accordingly, by subsection 41(4) of the BIA , the estate is deemed to be fully administered. In my view, it is clear that the trustee would, but for the opposition, be entitled to be discharged accordingly. However, I consider the opposition of the creditor/inspector as required by subsection 41(6) of the BIA .

In her notice of opposition to the discharge of the trustee dated March 3, 2021, two issues are raised: 1) Whether the trustee should send reports to the Crown Attorney, FINTRAC and CRA respecting the bankrupt; and 2) Whether the reports that the trustee sent to the Crown Attorney, FINTRAC and CRA were properly delivered. In her draft order, the creditor/inspector seeks an order postponing the discharge of the trustee until the reports have been sent by the trustee and includes relief relating to the alleged transfer of monies between the bankrupt and his spouse.

The latter point was not raised as a ground of opposition and, regardless, is a matter that is subject to a s.38 BIA order granted in favour of the creditor. I am satisfied from a review of the record that the trustee did send the reports in question to the Crown Attorney, FINTRAC and CRA via mail and albeit not by courier due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I am satisfied with the explanation of the trustee that there were scanning issues and that the trustee has in fact included all relevant documents in the mailing.

This conclusion is reinforced by or consistent with the dismissal of the complaint of the creditor/inspector filed with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. In my view, it is clear that the creditor/inspector has taken issue with the bankrupt's conduct and whether there have been improper transfers of monies and/or laundering of monies. The creditor, as mentioned above, has the benefit of a s. 38 order. Furthermore, any issues concerning criminality, FINTRAC and CRA are issues within the purview of these other authorities and are not a basis for refusing the trustee's discharge.

The estate is without funds and, in fact, the trustee has suffered a significant deficiency in the

administration of the estate. In my view, the creditor/inspector has the benefit of a s. 38 BIA order and can pursue her remedies accordingly despite the discharge ofthe trustee. I am satisfied that the trustee has discharged all duties required under the BIA and that the estate has been fully administered.See Re Dubyk (2009), 59 C.B.R.(5th) 47 (Sask. Q.B.). Order to go granting the trustee's discharge.

I have signed the draft order filed by the trustee.” Filatova tried to force Trustee to have investigations commenced by RCMP, Crown, FINTRAC and CRA in both the Bannikovand Bannikova Estates – Failed: [30] Previously on March 10, 2020 (now) Justice Mills (“Registrar Mills”) resolved another motion brought by Filatova when theTrustee delivered correspondence to the RCMP, Fintrac and CRA about this Bankrupt’s conduct (the “Mills Endorsement”). [31] There is no evidence before the Court that the RCMP, Fintrac or CRA have taken any steps to prosecute Bannikov orBannikova in response to any of the “reports” that Filatova demanded that the Trustee send in either of the Bannikov or BannikovaEstates. [32] Filatova had every ability, from the date of her loan to Bannikov in 2016, her lawsuit against Bannikov in 2018, before or afterthe assignments into Bankruptcy of Bannikov or Bannikova, to the present date, to independently report any crimes that had beenallegedly committed against her by Bannikov or Bannikova to the Police, Fintrac and CRA not being reliant upon the Trustee, the OSBor the Court to do so. [33] There is no evidence before the court that Filatova has ever done so, or that any of these entities have ever chosen toinvestigate any of her complaints, independent of any complaints she attempted to force the Trustee to make. [34] Despite the settling of that issue in the Bannikov Estate, by the Mills Endorsement, and by AJ Jean in the Bannikov TrusteeDischarge Endorsement, Filatova yet again brings up these issues on this application in this Estate by the Trustee for approval of theSRD and Discharge in the Bannikova Estate.

Filatova tried to sue the Trustee in the Bannikov Estate – Failed: [35] In addition, Filatova attempted to sue the Trustee in the Bannikov Estate. Dietrich, J, denied leave under s.215 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.B-3, as am. (the “BIA”) to Filatova to sue the Trustee, the relevant parts of her decision(Filatova v. Russo Corp., 2020 ONSC 7294 (the “Dietrich, J. S.215 Endorsement”) read: “[1] In 2016, Elena Filatova (the “Applicant”) lent $80,000 to Igor Bannikov (the “Bankrupt”). She did not secure the loan withcollateral or a general security agreement.

The Bankrupt failed to repay the loan and, on March 7, 2018, the Applicant obtained ajudgment for $83,200, plus $1,100 for costs. On March 20, 2018, she registered a writ against the Bankrupt and against real property,municipally known as 64 Savage Road, in the Town of Newmarket (the “Property”). [2] The Bankrupt owned the Property jointly with his wife, Elena Bannikova (“Ms. Bannikova”). The Property was encumberedby a first mortgage and a second mortgage, both of which were in arrears. The first mortgagee was considering a sale of the Propertyunder power of sale.

The Bankrupt also had other unpaid loans and credit card debt. [3] Ms. Bannikova personally made an assignment in bankruptcy on or about April 19, 2018. On May 7, 2018, using a power ofattorney for property granted to her by the Bankrupt on October 17, 2008, Ms. Bannikova made an assignment in bankruptcy on hisbehalf. [4] The respondent, Russo Corp., a Licensed Insolvency Trustee (the “Trustee”), was charged with administering the estates ofMs. Bannikova and the Bankrupt. [5] On May 8, 2018, the Trustee sold the Property and made payments to the first mortgagee and the second mortgagee.

Theirrespective mortgages were discharged. After satisfying those debts and paying the real estate commission and legal fees, a modestamount of proceeds was transferred to the Bankrupt’s estate. The Trustee was unable to realize any other asset of the Bankrupt and theBankrupt did not pay the Trustee’s fees. The Trustee could not pay the Applicant’s unsecured claim. [6] On October 24, 2018, the creditors of the Bankrupt appointed the Applicant as the sole inspector of the Bankrupt’s estate.On January 15, 2019, pursuant to s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.

B-3 (the “BIA”), the Applicant obtained anorder authorizing her to continue the action against the Bankrupt’s assets located in Russia and Canada, and assigning all the Trustee’srights, title and interest in the subject matter of the proceedings to the Applicant. [7] The Applicant was unsuccessful in realizing any additional assets of the Bankrupt. [8] The Applicant brings this motion for leave to bring an action against the Trustee. She alleges that the Bankrupt’s assignmentinto bankruptcy was illegal and the Trustee should not have accepted it.

She asserts that the power of attorney for property used by Ms.Bannikova to make the assignment in bankruptcy on the Bankrupt’s behalf was defective and that Ms. Bannikova did not have theauthority to act as his attorney for property. [9] The Applicant further asserts that if the Trustee had not accepted the Bankrupt’s assignment into bankruptcy, the Applicantwould not have been prevented from collecting her debt from the Bankrupt. But for the bankruptcy she could have negotiated with the

Bankrupt for the repayment of her debt, in whole or in part, in exchange for her agreement to lift her writ of execution to permit him to sell the Property. [10] For the reasons that follow, I decline to grant leave to the Applicant. She has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that there is a factual basis for a claim against the Trustee or that her claim discloses a cause of action. … [19] The Applicant asserts that, had the Trustee not accepted the “illegal” power of attorney and Ms.

Bannikova’s authority to make an assignment in bankruptcy on behalf of the Bankrupt, the Applicant would have been able to negotiate with the Bankrupt directly. She would have bargained with him for payment of some or all of the judgment in exchange for lifting her writ so he could sell the Property. Again, I disagree. Apart from the finding that the power of attorney was not a defective document and Ms. Bannikova was not disqualified from relying on it to make the assignment in bankruptcy, I find the Applicant’s reasoning on her alleged damages to be speculative at best.

Since the Bankrupt had no equity in the Property, it is unlikely that he would have had any interest in negotiating with the Applicant to lift her writ. The more probable outcome, it seems to me, would have been a sale of the Property by a mortgagee under power of sale. The Applicant was one of a number of unsecured creditors of the Bankrupt. [20] The facts relied on by the Applicant relating to the power of attorney and the consequences of the Trustee’s acceptance of Ms.

Bannikova’s authority to act as an attorney for property do not disclose a cause of action against the Trustee. [21] Further, I note that the Applicant acknowledges that she has actively participated in the administration of the Bankrupt’s estate.

She is an inspector of the Bankrupt’s estate, she regularly participated in creditor meetings and she attended at the Trustee’s office to review and make copies of records and documents. [22] Throughout the administration of the Bankrupt’s estate, the Applicant challenged the Trustee’s actions and filed eight complaints with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

Each of these complaints, including the one regarding the legality of the power of attorney, was reviewed by that Office and subsequently closed. [23] The Applicant has not established a factual basis for a claim against the Trustee or that her claim discloses a cause of action against the Trustee. The Applicant has not provided evidence to show that the Trustee has any liability for her loss or that she has suffered damages as a consequence of the Trustee’s actions. [24]

Section 215 of the BIA balances two important objectives: the need for proper oversight of receivers and trustees, which takes the form of both court oversight and creditors’ rights to proceed against receivers and trustees, and the need to prevent unmeritorious actions from proceeding against a court’s agent: Crate Marine Sales Ltd. (Re) , 2017 ONSC 178 , [2017] O.J. No. 884 , at para. 62 . The Applicant’s proposed action is unmeritorious and should not proceed against the Trustee, an agent of the court.

Disposition and Costs [25] The Applicant’s motion for leave to pursue her claim against the Trustee is dismissed. [26] The Trustee has succeeded in defending this motion and is entitled to its costs. The Trustee seeks costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $27,674, or on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $24,919, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Considering the general principles relating to costs as set out in r. 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure , R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 , I fix the costs payable by the Applicant to the Trustee on a partial indemnity basis at $5,000, payable forthwith. [27] I have endorsed the Order to go in the form attached. The Order is effective as of the date of this endorsement and does not need to be entered.” S.38 Order granted to Filatova in Bannikov Estate - Filatova fails to collect any amounts from Bannikov: [ 36 ] In a

Section 38 Order granted by Associate Justice Jean on January 15, 2019 in the Bannikov Estate (the “ s.38 Order ”), Filatova was granted the following relief: “1.

THIS COURT ORDERS that the applicant creditor may and they are hereby authorized to initiate an action against the bankrupt's assets located in Russia (Russia, Orenburg region, Novotroitsk, street Ural 30a; Reg## 56: 42: 0232006: 706 and 56: 42: 0232006: 705; Russia, Orenburg region, Novotroitsk, street Ural 20a, Reg# 56:42:0230008:57; Russia, Orenburg region, Novotroitsk, Solnechny, street Cherry, 30, Reg# 56:42:401001:44; Russia, Orenburg region, Novotroitsk, street New, Reg# 56:42:0217005:134; Russia, Orenburg region, Novotroitsk, Komarov Street, 9, ap. 38, Reg# 56:42:0225005:453); funds and businesses located in Canada and Russia (WAY TO HEALTH CLINIC INC, Ontario; VALENTINA, the Russian Federation)

arising from the appointment of the Trustee, or vesting in the Trustee as a result of its appointment, in the applicant creditor's own name and at its own expense and risk, in accordance with s.38 of the BIA ” [ 37 ] As stated in the Bannikov Trustee Discharge Endorsement by AJ Jean, Filatova has had the right to pursue the assets listed in the Bannikov s.38 Order, which ground for the opposition by Filatova to oppose the discharge of the Trustee in the Bannikov Estate was specifically rejected by AJ Jean. [ 38 ] These grounds again reappears in the Filatova Bannikova Discharge Opposition, as if the Bannikov Trustee Discharge Endorsement was never issued. [ 39 ] At the hearing before me Filatova admitted she has not had any success in the last 4 years in realizing upon the Russian properties listed in the Bannikov s.38 Order, one of which “Komarova 9, Unit 38, Orenburg Region, City of Novotroitsk, Russia.” [ 40 ] This appears from the Bannikova’s testimony at the s.161 examination held on December 18, 2018 to be the same physical unit joined with “Komarova 9, Unit 37, Orenburg Region, City of Novotroitsk, Russia.” listed as a ground of opposition to the Trustee’s discharge in this Estate. [ 41 ] As stated by the Bannikova at Question 6: “6.

Do you have or have you had, an ownership claim on any properly, within Canada or abroad? If yes, provide details? How about your spouse? (Komarova 9, Unit 37, Orenburg Region, Novotroitsk, Russia) Bankrupt: In Canada the only properly I had was 64 Savage, In Russia, I owned 1/4 of the apartment. I am not sure If I have ownership still. OR: is that the Komarova 9, Unit 38, Orenburg Region, Novotroitsk, Russia address? Bankrupt: It is the same address but Unit 37. We had two apartments but they were joint. (

a) Is this an apartment building, condo or a house? (

b) Bankrupt: Yes. An Apartment [ 42 ] It appears that Filatova made an error in the Bannikov s.38 Order in the Bannikov Estate she provided to the Court in not also adding unit 38 to the Bannikov s.38 Order.

Filatova Proof of Claim disallowed at Filatova’s request- Filatova is not a creditor of the Bannikova Estate [ 43 ] Filatova is not a proven creditor of the Bannikova Bankruptcy Estate, in very unusual circumstances. [ 44 ] Filatova had filed a claim in this Bannikova Bankruptcy Estate in the amount of $85,336.58, that Filatova then demanded that the Trustee disallow (the “ Bannikova Proof of Claim ”). [ 45 ] She had previously filed a Proof of Claim 85,336.58 in the Bannikov Estate as a secured creditor, for the entirety of the amount claimed, that was disallowed as a secured claim, and allowed as an unsecured claim (the “ Bannikov Proof of Claim ”). [ 46 ] The basis of both proofs of claim was a default Judgment obtained by Filatova in the Newmarket Superior Court on March 07, 2018 against Bannikov, ALONE in the amount of $83,200.00, costs of $1,110.00 and post-judgment interest at 3% (the “ Bannikov Judgment ”). [ 47 ] Filatova obtained a writ of seizure and sale for her judgement against Bannikov, ALONE. [ 48 ] On October 29, 2018 the Trustee properly disallowed the proof of claim of Filatova in the Bannikov Estate as a secured claim on the basis that no security was provided for the loan as the writ of seizure and sale is not security, of any kind, and the Trustees interest in the assets of the Bankrupt Bannikov had priority over the Bannikov Judgement under the provisions of s.70 of the BIA , which reads: “Precedence of bankruptcy orders and assignments 70

(1) Every bankruptcy order and every assignment made under this Act takes precedence over all judicial or other attachments, garnishments, certificates having the effect of judgments, judgments, certificates of judgment, legal hypothecs of judgment creditors, executions or other process against the property of a bankrupt, except those that have been completely executed by payment to the creditor or the creditor’s representative, and except the rights of a secured creditor.” [ 49 ] The actual proven unsecured creditors of the Bannikov Estate (not Filatova) total $49,471.26, and appear to have taken no role or interest whatsoever in the administration of the Bannikov Estate. [ 50 ] Filatova appears to have recycled her claim under the Bannikov Judgment, that supported the Bannikov Proof of Claim, as the basis for the Bannikova Proof of Claim she filed in the Bannikova Estate, in the exact same amount. [ 51 ] I do not understand why Filatova insisted that the Trustee disallow the Bannikova Proof of Claim.

But she did insist.

[52] When the Trustee did not disallow the Bannikova Proof of Claims with sufficient alacrity, Filatova made yet anothercomplaint to the OSB regarding the Trustee’s failure to disallow the Bannikova Proof of Claim, which the OSB, yet again, investigatedand determined to be unfounded in fact and law. [53] The Trustee did issue a Notice of Disallowance, properly, given that the Bannikov Judgment is only against Bannikov, whichFilatova failed to appeal within the permitted time periods, after consulting with Mr.

Harris. [54] As a result, at her own insistence, Filatova is not a creditor of the Bankruptcy Estate of Bannikova. For the purposes of theopposition to the approval of the Trustee’s Statement of Receipts and Disbursements, Filatova is not a creditor with a proven claim. [55] Later in these reasons, I will detail the scope, subject matter and disposition of the NINE (9) complaints filed by Filatova withthe OSB against the Trustee, in both the Bannikov and Bannikova Estates that appear in the materials before me.

They were all found bythe OSB to be unfounded. [56] Section 41(5) of the BIA reads: 41(5) Objections to be filed with court and trustee Any interested person desiring to object to the discharge of a trustee shall, at least five days prior to the date of the hearing, file notice ofobjection with the registrar of the court setting out the reasons for the objection and serve a copy of the notice on the trustee. [57] The term “interested person” has been interpreted in Genometrics Corp., Re, 2005 SKQB 488 (Sask.

Q.B.) (“Genometrics”)at par. 15: “Although the language of these provisions could have been clearer I would suggest that one can infer that "interested person" would bethose that are required to receive notice of taxation.

Those parties entitled to notice are specified in s. 152(5) as 'every creditor whoseclaim has been proved, to the registrar, to the Superintendent and to the bankrupt.” [58] Because of her self-inflicted disallowance of her own claim in the Bannikova Estate, Filatova is not an “interested person” forthe purposes of s.41(5) for the Bannikova Estate. [59] I am supported in this assessment by the recent binding decision of the Court of Appeal in YG Limited Partnership and YSLResidences Inc. (Re), 2023 ONCA 505 (“YG”), upholding the decision of Osborne, J. in YG Limited Partnership and YSLResidences Inc., 2022 ONSC 6548 where the Court of Appeal, in determining standing in an appeal of a Trustee’s disallowance of aProof of Claim, stated the general principle of Standing as: “ First, in Ivandaeva, [Ivandaeva Total Image Salon Inc. v.

Hlembizky (2003), (ON CA), 63 O.R. (3d) 769 (C.A.)] atpara. 27, in describing the basis for standing Borins J.A. stipulated that “the order must be one that directly affects the rights of themoving party in respect of the proprietary or economic interests of the party.” [60] In this case, with the disallowance of her proof of claim in the Bannikova Estate, at her own insistence, Filatova no longer hadany “…proprietary or economic interests” that were “directly affected” by the Motion by the Trustee to have the SRD Taxed and to bedischarged in the Bannikova Estate, under the YG test. [61] This lack of standing was pointed out to Filatova by me in the First Endorsement, and in the Second Endorsement.

Filatovanevertheless filed hundreds of pages of responding materials in the Bannikova Estate continuing to oppose the approval of the SRD andthe discharge of the Trustee, purportedly in the capacity as: “SUPPLEMENTARY RESPONDING MOTION RECORD OF ELENA FILATOVA, AN INTERESTED PARTY - Creditor and Inspector In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Igor Bannikov, a spouse of Elena Bannikova, a bankrupt” [62] That attempt also fails, as none of those positions, even if applicable to Filatova in the Bannikov Estate, fit within thedefinition of an “interested person” in the Bannikova Estate, as interpreted in Genomics. [63] Also, the only party with the actual legal ability to represent the Bannikov Estate, is the Trustee, not Filatova. [64] In addition, AJ Jean in her Bannikov Trustee Discharge Endorsement granted an Order discharging the Trustee in theBannikov Estate, despite the opposition of Filatova, on very similar grounds as the opposition she filed in the Bannikova Estate.

As aresult, there is no longer an open Bannikov Estate for Filatova to be an “inspector” of to try to salvage her “standing” to oppose thedischarge of the Trustee in the Bannikova Estate. [65] In any event, given that Filatova attempted in February of 2020 to sue the Trustee and the Bannikov Estate that she was anInspector of, and was denied leave to do so by Dietrich, J. in November of 2020 and ordered to pay costs to the Trustee, under theprovisions of s.116(2) of the BIA, Filatova should have resigned or been removed under s.116(5) as an inspector of the Bannikov Estatefrom February of 2020 onward. [66] However, given the thousands of pages filed by Filatova in proceedings in the Bannikov Estate and the Bannikova Estate, andon this Motion, and given the lack of funding of the Trustee in either estate, and from the Trustee’s submissions before me at the hearing,

it is apparent to me that the Trustee chose not to make a formal motion under the provisions of s.116(5) to remove Filatova as inspector of the Bannikov Estate on practical grounds, and not because she lacked ample legal grounds and evidence to do so. [ 67 ] In any event, even if she was still an inspector of the Bannikov Estate, where the AJ Jean had already determined was fully administered, the Order for taxation and discharge sought by the Trustee in the Bannikova Estate, where Filatova was neither inspector nor creditor, was not one that “…directly affects the rights of the moving party in respect of the proprietary or economic interests of…” Filatova per the YG test. [ 68 ] As a result, Filatova lacked any standing whatsoever to oppose the approval of the SRD and the discharge of the Trustee in the Bannikova Estate. [ 69 ] But still she persisted opposing on very similar grounds as where rejected by AJ Jean in the Bannikov Trustee Discharge Endorsement, with no actual right to do so.

The Broader Context [ 70 ] There is a much broader context to the goings on in this particular opposition to the SRD the Bannikova

Summary Administration Bankruptcy Estate. [ 71 ] The fundamental issue is, as stated by the Trustee in the SRD, is that the total recoveries in the Bannikova Estate are $2,410.78 .

In the Bannikov Estate the Trustee realized $75.00 . [ 72 ] At no point in all of this activity did Filatova provide any funding to the Trustee to undertake any of the investigations of either Bankrupt. [ 73 ] What is at the heart of this issue is that Filatova refuses to acknowledge that the Trustee has no funding in the Bannikova estate, and the Trustee has to administer the Bannikova Estate within that financial reality, notwithstanding Filatova’s incessant demands to conduct investigations and commence proceedings. [ 74 ] The actual proven creditors of the Bannikova Estate, mostly institutional, have combined claims larger than Filatova’s claim, before it was disallowed.

The Trustee must be cognizant of the interests of all of the creditors, and not merely the campaign by Filatova against Bannikov and Bannikova, particularly where Filatova has no proven claim in the Bannikova Estate. [ 75 ] As found as matters of fact by Dietrich, J. with respect to the Bannikov Estate: “[5] On May 8, 2018, the Trustee sold the Property and made payments to the first mortgagee and the second mortgagee. Their respective mortgages were discharged. After satisfying those debts and paying the real estate commission and legal fees, a modest amount of proceeds was transferred to the Bankrupt’s estate.

The Trustee was unable to realize any other asset of the Bankrupt and the Bankrupt did not pay the Trustee’s fees. The Trustee could not pay the Applicant’s unsecured claim. [6] On October 24, 2018, the creditors of the Bankrupt appointed the Applicant as the sole inspector of the Bankrupt’s estate. On January 15, 2019, pursuant to s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.

B-3 (the “ BIA ”), the Applicant obtained an order authorizing her to continue the action against the Bankrupt’s assets located in Russia and Canada, and assigning all the Trustee’s rights, title and interest in the subject matter of the proceedings to the Applicant.” [7] The Applicant was unsuccessful in realizing any additional assets of the Bankrupt. And: “[21] Further, I note that the Applicant acknowledges that she has actively participated in the administration of the Bankrupt’s estate.

She is an inspector of the Bankrupt’s estate, she regularly participated in creditor meetings and she attended at the Trustee’s office to review and make copies of records and documents. [22] Throughout the administration of the Bankrupt’s estate, the Applicant challenged the Trustee’s actions and filed eight complaints with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

Each of these complaints, including the one regarding the legality of the power of attorney, was reviewed by that Office and subsequently closed.” [39] As found as matters of fact by AJ Jean with respect to the Bannikov Estate, a year prior to Filatova opposing the SRD and discharge of the Trustee in the Bannikova Estate: “In my view, it is clear that the creditor/inspector has taken issue with the bankrupt's conduct and whether there have been improper

transfers of monies and/or laundering of monies. The creditor, as mentioned above, has the benefit of as. 38 order. Furthermore, any issues concerning criminality, FINTRAC and CRA are issues within the purview of these other authorities and are not a basis for refusing the trustee's discharge. The estate is without funds and, in fact, the trustee has suffered a significant deficiency in the administration of the estate. In my view, the creditor/inspector has the benefit of a s. 38 BIA order and can pursue her remedies accordingly despite the discharge of the trustee.

I am satisfied that the trustee has discharged all duties required under the BIA and that the estate has been fully administered. See Re Dubyk (2009), 59 C.B.R.(5th) 47 (Sask.

Q.B.) .” [ 76 ] The overall conduct of Filatova, and the findings made by AJ Jean, and Dietrich, J. must be factored into my evaluation of the conduct of the parties to determine Costs on this Motion, given the evidence of the futility of all of Filatova’s activity in both estates. [ 77 ] Filatova, by recycling complaints against the conduct of the Trustee in the Bannikov Estate in her objections to the approval of the SRD and the Discharge of the Trustee in the Bannikova Estate, has invited scrutiny by the Court of her conduct in both the Bannikov and Bannikova Estates, in order to properly adjudicate her objections, and to determine the costs she will have to pay as a result of the failure of her objections to prevent Taxation and Discharge in the Bannikova Estate.

Nine complaints made by Filatova to OSB – all deemed unfounded [ 78 ] The most extraordinary aspect of this entire debacle is the sheer volume of complaints made by Filatova against the Trustee, the degree of involvement of the OSB in having to investigate each complaint as required under the BIA , and rejecting all 9 of them as unfounded (the “ OSB Complaint Rejection Letters ”), and the vexatious repetitive nature of each complaint. [ 79 ] In order to properly place all of these complaints in context of the complaints made, AGAIN, in the Filatova Bannikova Discharge Opposition, I had to prepare the following chart: OSB Complaint Date by Filatova Bannikov or Bannikova Estate Subject Matter of Complaint Date complaint rejected by OSB Raised again in motion for Mills Endorsement March 10, 2020 Raised again in Bannikov s.215 Motion before Dietrich, J.

November 26, 2020 Raised again in Bannikov Taxation before AJ Jean, September 1. 2021 Raised again by Filatova in Bannikova Taxation before AJ Ilchenko February 19, 2021 heard on March 15, 2022 Raised again by Filatova at hearing June 28, 2022 July 17, 2018 Bannikov -Quantum and priority of proof of claim as secured creditor -validity of power of attorney under which assigned -details of 64 Savage Road, 225 Platten Blvd., Russian Assets, 56 Direzze Court, IB Import Export Canada, Way to Health Clinic September 17, 2018- direction by OSB to Filatova regarding s.38 as estate has no funds No No Yes- relating to allegations of transfers of Russian assets and funds Yes -demands that Mortgagees of 64 Savage Road return secured mortgage proceeds received despite priority, investigation of Russian assets, Way to Health Yes

October 12, 2018 (25 days after OSB rejection of prior complaint) Bannikov -Notice regarding proof of claim filed -conduct of first meeting of creditors - validity of power of attorney used for filing assignment -access to estate documents as creditor -opposition to discharge for failure of duties - realization on 64 Savage Road, 225 Platten Blvd., Russian Assets, 56 Direzze Court, IB Import Export Canada, Way to Health Clinic October 23, 2018 No Yes- leave denied for leave to sue Trustee for assigning Bannikov on basis of Power of Attorney held by Bannikova Yes- relating to allegations of transfers of Russian assets and funds Yes – demands that Mortgagees of 64 Savage Road return secured mortgage proceeds received despite priority, investigation of Russian assets, Way to Health Yes November 27, 2018 (35 days after OSB rejection of prior complaint) Bannikov Providing copies of minutes of inspector meetings and timeliness of responses from Bankrupt December 19, 2018 No No No No Yes- regarding timeliness of responses by Trustee March 1, 2019 (72 days after OSB rejection of prior complaint) Bannikov -Slowness of responses by Trustee to Filatova correspondence -revisions to minutes of meetings of creditors -Trustee obtaining further information about Russian assets after Filatova obtained s.38 Order for Russian Assets -attempt by Filatova to hold meeting of inspectors without Trustee present and to chair meeting March 21, 2019 No No Yes- relating to allegations of transfers of assets and funds Yes- demands that Mortgagees of 64 Savage Road return secured mortgage proceeds received despite priority, investigation of Russian assets, Way to Health Yes

April 14, 2019 (44 days after OSB rejection of prior complaint) Both -demand by Filatova to chair meeting of Inspectors despite prior OSB statement she could not - demand by Filatova to amend minutes of meetings of inspectors despite prior OSB statement she could not - failure of Trustee to get Court hearing date despite not being in the control of Trustee -demand for criminal charges against Bankrupt by OSB -Demands for Estate documents by Filatova -demand by Filatova to file proof of claim in Bannikova Estate, where she was not a creditor to have claim disallowed -allegations of offences by Bannikova May 14, 2019 Unknown No Yes regarding demands that discharge be delayed until packages are resent to Crown, Fintrac and CRA and relief related to transfers of assets Yes regarding demands that discharge be delayed until packages are resent to Crown, Fintrac and CRA Yes regarding demands that discharge be delayed until packages are resent to Crown, Fintrac and CRA August 19, 2019 (97 days after OSB rejection of prior complaint) Bannikova -complaint regarding s.170 Report and whether Bannikova has been convicted of an offence under the BIA - despite Filatova not being a creditor of the Bannikova Estate August 26, 2019 Unknown Not certain of specifics of allegation against Bannikova by Filatova from OSB letter Not certain of specifics of allegation against Bannikova by Filatova from OSB letter Yes Yes- to extent of basis for asking that “packages” be resent to Crown January 20, 2020 (147 days after OSB rejection of prior complaint) OSB letter does not specify -unknown from letter – may be related to noncompliance of Bannikov and Bannikova February 18, 2020 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown January 28 and 29, 2021 (I have counted as two complaints) (345 days after OSB rejection of prior complaint) Both Complaint “Packages” sent to Crown, FINTRAC and CRA requesting investigations “not professional” and should be resent, and proof of service provided to Filatova April 26, 2021 Yes No- complaint made after decision Yes- Rejected again by AJ Jean Yes Yes [ 80 ] In her materials Filatova has attempted to recast all of these rejections of her complaints by OSB as great victories where

Filatova forced the Trustee to do what she requested, or to do what the Trustee would do anyway under the BIA , but faster. Having read each of the OSB Complaint Rejection Letters in both the Bannikov and Bannikova Estates I note that they generally contain the following language: “On the basis of the available information, we have completed our review of your concerns and your complaint file has been closed accordingly.” [ 81 ] The OSB, as the regulator of Trustees have great disciplinary powers under the provisions of the BIA to review the conduct of Trustee’s and, in appropriate circumstances. Each of the OSB Complain Rejection Letters states: “In accordance with paragraph 5(3) (

f) of the BIA , the OSB has a duty to receive and keep a record of all complaints from any creditor or other person interested in any estate and make such specific investigations with regards to such complaints as the Superintendent may determine.” And “The OSB manages a multi-faceted regulatory program and is responsible for supervising all estates and matters to which the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ( BIA ) applies, as well as certain matters under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The ongoing monitoring of trustee, debtor, and creditor compliance in relation to the Act and its Rules and Directives is an essential part of our mandate.

Our office will initiate action, as appropriate, to address the non-compliance issues it detects but unless the matter is part of the public record, we cannot share the details of our compliance and enforcement activities.” [ 82 ] I take Judicial Notice of the fact that, despite investigating NINE (9) complaints made by Filatova in the Bannikova and Bannikov Estates, there is no evidence before me that the OSB has taken ANY disciplinary action whatsoever against the Trustee. [ 83 ] I also take Judicial Notice of the fact that the OSB has taken a considerable amount of taxpayer funded time and effort and resources to deal with Filatova’s unfounded complaints. [ 84 ] The sad part of all of this is if Filatova had concentrated her Ire and resources against Bannikova and Bannikov, instead of the Trustee, she may have been more successful in obtaining repayment of her loan. [ 85 ] This is also important as, given the terms of the s.38 Order, any amounts that would have been recovered over and above the amounts claimed by Filatova in the Bannikov Proof of Claim, would have had to have been returned by Filatova to the Trustee for payment of the costs of administration of the Bannikov Estate, and distribution to the other significant unsecured creditors.

Filatova’s failure to collect anything from Bannikov under the s.38 Order since its issuance in January 2019 prejudices the interests of those other creditors in the Bannikov Estate. [ 86 ] From the review of thousands of pages of materials filed by Filatova and the Trustee in both the Bannikov and Bannikova Estates, it is quite apparent to me that the Courts, the Trustee and the OSB have all bent over backwards to placate Filatova’s incessant demands in both the Bannikov and Bannikova estates and that:

a) Filatova was given far more access to the records of both estates than ordinarily a creditor or inspector would be entitled to under the BIA or the BIA Rules;

b) Filatova obtained an order under s.163(2) and examined Vadim Rumberg the Manager of Way to Health Clinic on August 20, 2019;

c) Filatova obtained a s.38 Order assigning to her the Trustee’s claims relating to the Russian Assets and the Way to Health Clinic;

d) Notwithstanding that Filatova was insisting that charges be brought under s.205 of the BIA in a manner that was wholly inconsistent with how that

section is supposed to function, those “packages” were indeed sent to the Crown, FINTRAC and the CRA to placate Filatova, despite the OSB and the Trustee having absolutely no ability whatsoever to affect the charging, investigation and audit discretion of the Crown, FINTRAC and the CRA, being entirely independent bodies, and despite being advised of that fact in several letters by OSB and again by AJ Jean;

e) Again, notwithstanding the Mills Endorsement in 2020, and then the Bannikov Trustee Discharge Endorsement in 2021, a year later Filatova continued to insist that the “packages” be resent as a ground of opposition to the Trustees SRD in the Filatova Bannikova Discharge Opposition, because of Filatova’s belief that the “packages” were insufficiently “professional”, rather than acknowledging that perhaps the Crown, FINTRAC and the CRA may have chosen not to exercise their discretion to investigate her complaints further, particularly where the accused Bannikov appeared to be residing in Russia. [ 87 ] What has resulted from all of this frenetic activity by Filatova.

Nothing. [ 88 ] As stated by Dietrich J. in the Dietrich, J. s.215 Endorsement in November of 2020, Filatova “…was unsuccessful in realizing any additional assets of the Bankrupt.” [ 89 ] Filatova confirmed this before me two years later. [ 90 ] Had Filatova taken the advice provide by the Trustee, by the OSB in OSB Complaint Rejection Letters, as well as by AJ Jean and myself, and hired insolvency counsel to provide her with proper advice, for a likely cost less than the costs that were assessed against Filatova by Dietrich, J. alone, she may have recovered something in this estate.

But she did not and here we are again assessing costs against her for her conduct in relation to the Trustee. [ 91 ] And in this situation, there is no doubt in my mind that Bannikov and Bannikova are bad actors who failed in their duties as

Bankrupts under the BIA . [ 92 ] The Trustee properly opposed the discharge of Bannikov on the following grounds: 173(1)(a} - the assets of the bankrupt are not of value equal to fifty cents on the dollar; 173(1)(b) - the bankrupt has omitted to keep such books of account as are usual and proper in the business carried on by the bankrupt and as sufficiently disclose the business transactions and financial position of the bankrupt within the period beginning on the day that is three years before the date of the initial bankruptcy event and ending on the date of bankruptcy, both dates included; 173(1)(d) - the bankrupt has failed to account satisfactorily for any loss of assets of or any deficiency of assets to meet the bankrupt's liabilities; 173(1){e) - the bankrupt has brought on, or contributed to, the bankruptcy by rash and hazardous speculations, by unjustifiable extravagance in living, by gambling or by culpable neglect of the bankrupt's business affairs; 173(1 )(f) - the bankrupt has put creditors to unnecessary expense by a frivolous or vexatious defence to any action properly brought against the bankrupt; 173(1)(i) - the bankrupt has incurred liabilities in order to make the bankrupt's assets equal to fifty cents on the dollar; 173(1)(1) - the bankrupt has committed an offence under this Act or any other statute in connection with the bankrupt's property, the bankrupt or the proceedings thereunder; 173(1)(0) - the bankrupt has failed to perform the duties imposed on the bankrupt under this Act or comply with any order of the court.

Furthermore, the Bankrupt has:

i) Failed to pay LIT's fees; ii) Failed to deliver his property to the LIT; iii) Failed to deliver to the UT all credit cards; iv) Failed to deliver all documents relating to his property or affairs to the LIT;

v) Failed to provide all the assistance within his power to the LIT in making an inventory of his assets; vi) Failed to aid in the realization of his property; vii) Failed to keep the LIT advised at all time of his place of residence or address; viii) Failed to complete his counselling sessions; ix) Failed to disclose any information with respect to filing any tax information;

x) Failed to attend 1 st and second meeting of Creditors” [ 93 ] Bannikov, apparently now residing in Russia, did not attend his discharge hearing and a “NO Order” was granted. He remains an undischarged Bankrupt. [ 94 ] The Trustee properly opposed the discharge of Bannikova on the following grounds: “The Bankrupt failed to perform the duties imposed on the bankrupt under this Act or to comply with any order of the court, Section 173(1)(

o) and 158(

a) please refer to Notice of Examination Question 6 and Question 2 (

g) During the examination the bankrupt indicated that they had known of 1/4 interest in a property know as Komarova 9 Unit 37 Orenburg Region, Novotroitsk In Russia. The Property was not disclosed on the Statement of Affairs. Based on records provided to the LIT, it appears the property was sold In August 2018 for approximately $20,000.00. The Bankrupt disclosed that her spouse has a POA that allows him to deal with any of her assets in Russia. The Bankrupt failed to perform the duties imposed on the Bankrupt under this Act or to comply with any order of the Court, pursuant to section 173(1)(

o) and 158(

g) Please review to Question 58 tabled at the examination. During the examination, the Bankrupt failed to admit to the LIT that she had made other transfers to Russia from a joint account, but could not recall the liming of these payments. The Bankrupt has brought on, or contributed to, the bankruptcy by rash and hazardous speculations, by unjustifiable extravagance in living, by gambling or by culpable neglect of the bankrupt's business affairs, pursuant to

section 173 (

e) of the BIA , please refer to question 18 in the Notice of Examination. The Bankrupt disclosed at the examination that she transferred $50,000 to an unknown party in Russia in May 2017. She further stated that her husband had requested she send the above noted funds to Russia. She was unable to confirm if the transfer was lo an arm's length party or not. The Bankrupt disclosed at the examination that she would come to a financial arrangement to preferentially pay the $9,500.00 owed to her daughter, question 18 ii.

During the Examination, there is inconsistencies with the information provided by the bankrupt regarding her current contact and relationship with her spouse. The bankruptcy indicated that she rarely spoke to her spouse who is currently located in Russia. The Bankrupt then stated that she contacted her spouse a few days prior to the exam and that they would discuss their family among other matters. The bankrupt Indicated that she had been aware of her spouse's alleged gambling issues 5-7 years prior to the exam and further indicated that she had concealed funds from him.

However, she indicated that her spouse currently has a POA to deal with properly in Russia on her behalf despite knowing the alleged gambling issues of her spouse.

During the examination, the bankrupt indicated that she had using cash advances from credit cards, transferred money from her lines of credit to pay her credit cards and used lines of credit to pay her mortgage for a period of 6-8 months prior to filing an assignment into bankruptcy (question 18 in examination).” [ 95 ] As noted above, after assessing these facts and in exercising her Registrar’s Discretion, Bannikova was discharged conditionally by AJ Jean on August, 29 2019 and discharged unconditionally by AJ Jean on September 17, 2021 after meeting her conditions.

Protections of the Trustee under the BIA [ 96 ] The crux of all of this is the fact that bad non-compliant bankrupts, and estates with no funds, are a challenge to administer for Trustees. [ 97 ] The general approach to the

interpretation of the BIA , and the protections and remedies provided to trustees under the BIA , recognizes this reality. Courts have consistently interpreted the provisions of the BIA in a manner that recognizes that Trustees are officers of the Court and require the protection of the Court to fulfill their duties under, and the objectives of, the BIA . [ 98 ] As stated in Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law of Canada , Fourth Edition, by The Honourable Mr. Justice Lloyd W. Houlden, Mr. Justice Geoffrey B. Morawetz, and Dr. Janis P. Sarra (“ Houlden & Morawetz ”) at “§ 2:128.

Actions Against the Trustee— Generally” it is a general principal that: “The court should be cautious in allowing applications to be made against a trustee in bankruptcy, remembering that the trustee is by definition, the trustee of an insolvent estate. It is the court's duty at all times to protect an insolvent estate against unnecessary expense: Port v.

Auger , [1994] 3 All E.R. 200 (Ch.D.) .” [ 99 ] One of the key protections for Trustees administering estates which have few assets, where creditors are demanding that the Trustee take steps that the Trustee cannot risk, is the assignment of the claims of Trustees to creditors under s.38 of the BIA . [ 100 ] In the context of interpreting the BIA in a s.38 context, which Filatova has availed herself of in the Bannikov Estate (Filatova not being eligible under s.38 in the Bannikova Estate as she is not a creditor with a proven claim as a result of demanding the Trustee

disallow her proof of claim) the Court of Appeal stated the following interpretive principles for s.38 in Shaw Estate (Trustee of) v. NicolIsland Development Inc. 2009 CarswellOnt 1748, 2009 ONCA 276, [2009] O.J. No. 1333, 177 A.C.W.S. (3d) 296, 248 O.A.C. 35, 51C.B.R. (5th) 12: “

(1) Applicable Interpretive Principles 35 It is well-established that an overly narrow, legalistic approach to the

interpretation of the Act is to be avoided: A. Marquette & filsInc. v. Mercure, (SCC), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 547 (S.C.C.), at p. 556. Lloyd W. Houlden, Geoffrey B. Morawetz and JanisP.

Sarra in The 2009 Annotated Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Toronto: Thomson Carswell: 2008) note at p. 2: The general approach to the Act by the courts has been that it is a commercial statute, the administration of which is largely in the handsof business people and technical objections should, therefore, not be given effect to beyond what is necessary for the properinterpretation of the Act...Litigation and court proceedings are to be avoided, thus maximizing the return to creditors. [Citations omitted.] 36 The general purpose of the Act is described by these authors at p. 3 of the above-cited text in part as fo

[…]