In my view, the objections raised by Trillium regarding the
appointment of FTI as interim receiver apply with equal force to
the possibility that FTI might be appointed as the trustee in
 Section 39 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General
Rules, C.R.C., c. 368 states that a trustee must be “impartial”. In
Confederation Treasury Services Ltd. (Re),  O.J. No. 3993,
37 C.B.R. (3d) 237 (Gen. Div.), Farley J. affirmed this rule, at para.
14: “The trustee is an impartial officer of the Court; woe be to it if
it does not act impartially towards the creditors of the estate”.
 In Confederation Treasury, Farley J. also quoted [at para.
15] with approval the words of McQuaid J. in Prince Edward
Island v. Bank of Nova Scotia,  P.E.I.J. No. 28, 72 Nfld. &
P.E.I.R. 191 (T.D.), at p. 220 Nfld. & P.E.I.R.:
It is the duty of the trustee, who is an officer of the court, to represent impar-
tially the interests of all creditors; he is obligated to hold an even hand as be-
tween competing classes of creditors; he must act for the benefit of the
general body of creditors; he is not an agent of the creditors, but an adminis-
trative official required by law to gather in and realize on the assets of the
bankrupt and to divide the proceeds in accordance with the scheme of the
Bankruptcy Act among those entitled. And perhaps most importantly, he
must conduct himself in such a manner as to avoid any conflict, real or per-
ceived, between his interest and his duty.
 In the present case, FTI took a partisan position in favour
of a single creditor at the hearing of this matter. FTI positioned
itself on the side of GM as more an advocate than an administrator. FTI displayed further partiality in favour of GM when it suggested at the hearing that the choice of Trillium as a representative
plaintiff was an improper tactic intended to frustrate possible
creditors. I am of the view that in the circumstances it would be
inappropriate to appoint FTI as Trillium’s trustee in bankruptcy as
FTI has aligned itself with GM. There is, at least, the appearance
of a lack of independence on the part of FTI prior to any potential
appointment. I will hear further submissions if GM wishes to
advance an alternative trustee, if necessary.
The costs award is the property of Trillium
 First, class counsel submits that the costs award does not
belong to Trillium and therefore does not form part of
 In this regard, class counsel submits primarily that
a representative plaintiff is not entitled to profit from the class
action beyond its share of the damages and any honourarium.
They further submit that class counsel agreed to pursue this
action on contingency fee basis. Trillium has not paid legal fees to