The Defendant brought an Application for a Declaration that the Plaintiffs’ Claim did not survive the Defendant’s discharge from bankruptcy. The Master dismissed the Application and allowed the Plaintiffs to amend their Statement of Claim to include fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation and defalcation. The Defendant appealed the Master’s Decision.

Lee J. heard the Appeal of the Master’s Decision and stated that the standard of review was correctness for questions of law and reasonableness for questions of fact. Lee J. went on to state that the matter could not be dealt with summarily because the Plaintiffs had not yet obtained full disclosure of relevant information, and there was a genuine issue to be tried as to whether the Defendant induced the Plaintiffs to invest based on false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentations. These issues needed to be determined by the Court once the Plaintiffs amended their Statement of Claim. Lee J. held that the Master did not err in dismissing the Application, and that it was not appropriate under the circumstances for the Court to substitute its discretion for that of the Master.