Locke v. Murphy

Locke v. Murphy

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the motion judge correctly concluded that the appellant produced no evidentiary basis for claims of deceit or conspiracy and no evidence of damages, that the transfer severing the joint tenancy was permitted and did not prevent the separate remaining action on beneficial ownership, that the constitutional question was non-justiciable and ill conceived, and that there was no basis for criminal contempt; accordingly summary judgment dismissal of the second and third actions and dismissal of the appellant's motions was upheld.

Citation
2023 ONCA 497
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Donavan Locke; Defendant (respondent): Shannon Lyndsey Murphy; Defendant (respondent): Faiza Sultana; Defendant (respondent): Violette Sypniewski
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Family / Appeal From Motion Judge Summary Judgment Orders (superior Court of Justice Orders Dated November 2, 2022)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fraudulent Conveyance, Deceit, Conspiracy, Criminal Contempt, Severance of Joint Tenancy, Notice of Constitutional Question, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Constitutional Law Property Law Summary Judgment Fraudulent Conveyance Deceit +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donavan Locke

Plaintiff (appellant)

Shannon Lyndsey Murphy

Defendant (respondent)

Faiza Sultana

Defendant (respondent)

Violette Sypniewski

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Family / Appeal From Motion Judge Summary Judgment Orders (superior Court of Justice Orders Dated November 2, 2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was properly granted to dismiss actions alleging deceit and conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether the transfer severing a joint tenancy to tenancy in common constituted a fraudulent conveyance or otherwise barred the appellant's beneficial ownership claim
  3. 3 Whether a lawyer can be alleged to conspire with a client as a matter of law

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the motion judge correctly concluded that the appellant produced no evidentiary basis for claims of deceit or conspiracy and no evidence of damages, that the transfer severing the joint tenancy was permitted and did not prevent the separate remaining action on beneficial ownership, that the constitutional question was non-justiciable and ill conceived, and that there was no basis for criminal contempt; accordingly summary judgment dismissal of the second and third actions and dismissal of the appellant's motions was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissal of second and third actions by summary judgment
  • Dismissal of appellant's motions including the Notice of Constitutional Question and contempt motion