The Trustee applied for Costs against the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, after it was required to attend before the Registrar in respect of a taxation issue that was moot. The Superintendent of Bankruptcy issued a Comment Letter in response to the Trustee forwarding its final statement of receipt and disbursements to the Superintendent’s office. The Comment Letter asked the Trustee to proceed to taxation and present the Comment Letter to the Registrar, but acknowledged the issue of taxation was essentially moot as the Trustee’s fees had been taxed through an Order issued by Master Birkett. The request by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and the operation of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules, CRC, c 368 compelled the Trustee to return to Court, though the issue of taxation had already been decided.

Among other things, the Trustee argued that since the Superintendent of Bankruptcy requested that the Comment Letter be put before the Registrar, even though the taxation issue was moot, the Trustee wanted an opportunity to answer the Comment Letter as a matter of natural justice. Master Schlosser, acting as Registrar, noted that the Rules apply where the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 does not provide for the resolution of procedural issues. Referring to Rule 9.15, Master Schlosser remarked that this matter could have been put back before Master Birkett if the Superintendent of Bankruptcy wanted a further adjustment to the Trustee’s account. Master Schlosser noted that reopening the matter would be counterproductive and was not the relief sought by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. Noting that the Superintendent exercises a regulatory role in light of which the Court should not award Costs unless there is bad faith or improper purpose, Master Schlosser held that each party should bear its own Costs.