Am I understanding your replies correctly?  Do you mean NOBODY gets through the 10-year rule appeal process successfully?  The usury law is basically unenforceable with CSL, but not with other creditors? How so? Will I just waste more money pursuing this?

I'd really like to read remarks from students who have tried to appeal, to verify what my first trustee told me.  She said it would cost me a mere $1,000 in legal fees, it should be a 'rubber stamp', and trustees were looking forward to it as a benchmark decision.  She said trustees consider the current law unfair, given the frequent bankruptcies to negate student loans prior to the 10-year rule.

 Trustees consider it unfair because it restricts their ability to administer insolvency. That is their main concern.

 You wrote:

 "Am I understanding your replies correctly?  Do you mean NOBODY gets through the 10-year rule appeal process successfully?  The usury law is basically unenforceable with CSL, but not with other creditors? How so? Will I just waste more money pursuing this?"

 If the court (and Crown) is satisfied that you have acted in good faith, have not frustrated the system (used bankruptcy as an exit strategy from the responsibility of paying), and can demonstrate a financial hardship that will prevent you from being able to pay the debt, then the chances of discharge are very good.

 If they detemrine that you are able to pay based on their examination of you, then you will face resistance. If you motion the discharge under section 178, just make sure that you can demonstrate hardship.

Exactly how would someone demonstrate hardship. What type of documentation is required.

Are you able to provide a useful website where this info can be found?

Gann,

Apparently, $14,000 is the benchmark, and you'd have to prove it with bank account statements for six months.  A low source of income like Social Assistance or EI slips would also be considered.

--Theresa

 Demonstrating hardship is not difficult at all for those who truly are suffering from hardship.

 Substantiating or demonstrating hardship is FAR more than showing a lower income and bank statements. An examination for a discharge is not so simple.

 I will be creating a section onthese particular issues and actual cases that bring all of these obscure unknowns to visual clarity.

Hi Johnny,

I look forward to the section that you will be creating regarding issues and actual cases pertaining to the discharge of student loans under bankruptcy after 10 years.  Examples to demontrate the complexity of the process involved in an examination for a discharge would be much appreciated.

In the mean time, I am hoping that you can be more specific about what you know regarding substantiating or demonstrating hardship in terms of it being "FAR more than showing a lower income and bank statements".   I know that you are not an advocate of bankruptcy and that's ok with me.  However, it seems that your posts regarding this issue have the same clear message:  that there is no hope for those of us who have already done the deed (i.e. filed bankruptcy) and we are screwed for life.  I'll accept that if you can back it up with something other than what you heard from your lawyer friend down the hall.

karen

 Hi Peewee,

 I will be creating this section on my site in the very near future.

 You are correct. I am not an advocate for bankrupty - or any of it's siblings and kinships. However, I am not completely against insolvency, Peewee. I am only against bankruptcy, it's administration body, and audience when it is abused or utilized in such a way that is not ethical.

 You are interpreting my message as something that it is not. Again, I will reiterate:

 If the court and oposing sector is satisfied that the bankrupt has acted in good faith, is experiencing financial hardship with extenuating circumstances, and will continue to experience hardship that will prevent the bankrupt from repaying the debt, then the discharge should (will) be approved. 

 Do you agree with this? I sure do. If an individual in this type of case were to be denied a discharge after having proved such severe financial crisis and hardship, then there would be yet another  serious problem (flaw) in the system.

I'm just an amateur and from another country, but I would break it down close to something like this. If you are doing well enough that the ticks to your credit/reputation from a bankruptcy is giving you an excess amount of problems, then at one extreme a bankruptcy is probably not as needed as someone else. At the other extreme if you are already so financially infirmed that the stigma, problems, and wrongs associated with a bankruptcy is the LEAST of your problems, then it may be an injustice not to have bankruptcy available as an option-- especially if it is available to people with debts other than student loans.

That's how I see it.  

 If the court and Crown is satisfied that the bankrupt is, and will continuwe to experience fiancial hardship, then the discharge would be in order.

 There is one particular matter pertaining to bankruptcy and student loans that is examined closely, and that is the bankrupt's reasons for filing. When they see student loans ONLY, then they become skeptical as to what the bankrupt's real intent is.

 Older not wiser's situation sounds to me like there were an enormous amount of consumer debt (or commercial). In this type of case, the guard comes down because it is not just a student loan debt that is being evaluated. This would be considered hardship as reasons for the filing.

 THe court would have also reviewed to the Mrs. Older's, if not wiser's financial situatiuon. If it is determined by the cvourt that there is no financial ability for her to repay, then this would be considered "extenuating circumstances" that support the financial hardship.

 I would have to see the minutes and case file to read the decision.