Beaucage v. Storr

Beaucage v. Storr

The appeal was allowed in part because the application judge's order went beyond what was necessary to undo the fraudulent 2017 transfer; the proper remedy was to declare the 2017 transfer void and direct the Land Registrar to delete that registration while preserving the certificate of pending litigation and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 ONCA 818
Parties
Applicant (respondent on Appeal): Nathan Beaucage; Respondent (appellant on Appeal): Tracey Storr aka Tracey Lstorr; Respondent (appellant on Appeal): Arthur Painter aka Thomas Arthur Storr
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Application Judgment Concerning Land Title / Appeal (court of Appeal Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; application judge's order varied
Legal Topics
Transfer of Title, Fraudulent Transfer, Certificate of Pending Litigation, Consolidation of Proceedings, Scope of Relief
Source Language
english
Property Law Real Property Land Title Civil Procedure Transfer of Title Fraudulent Transfer Certificate of Pending Litigation Consolidation of Proceedings +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathan Beaucage

Applicant (respondent on Appeal)

Tracey Storr aka Tracey Lstorr

Respondent (appellant on Appeal)

Arthur Painter aka Thomas Arthur Storr

Respondent (appellant on Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Application Judgment Concerning Land Title / Appeal (court of Appeal Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2017 registered transfer was void and what remedial order is appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the application judge's order went beyond undoing the 2017 transfer and improperly affected rights arising from the 2015 transfer
  3. 3 Whether findings made by the application judge about the 2015 transfer should be treated as binding in subsequent proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part because the application judge's order went beyond what was necessary to undo the fraudulent 2017 transfer; the proper remedy was to declare the 2017 transfer void and direct the Land Registrar to delete that registration while preserving the certificate of pending litigation and leaving determination of the validity and effect of the 2015 transfer to the consolidated trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; application judge's order varied

Orders

  • Declare the November 28, 2017 transfer (Registration Number WR1082048) void and direct the Land Registrar at Kitchener to delete that transfer from the parcel register for the property
  • Maintain the order for a certificate of pending litigation against the property