Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal held that a fraudulent conveyance declaration was not limited to child support arrears and could support enforcement of the appellant’s costs judgment against sale proceeds.
Appeal dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments that the transfers were fraudulent were supported by the record and entitled to deference; evidential burden appropriately shifted after badges of fraud were established; intent was properly inferred given the pending divorce proceedings and knowledge of those proceedings; fresh evidence was inadmissible under Palmer; costs awarded to respondent $25,000.
Source excerpt
Because the will conferred only a life interest on Mr. Policelli, he held no proprietary interest that a judgment creditor could enforce, and because the deceased was not indebted to the appellant the Fraudulent Conveyances Act did not apply; therefore the appellant could not obtain equitable relief or a receiver and the application judge did not err in excluding fresh evidence or in the costs award.
Source excerpt
The purported appeal was dismissed because the appellant was not a party to the Family Law Act proceeding, had not been added or sought appropriate relief in Superior Court, and therefore lacked standing to bring the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a fraudulent conveyance claim but varied the will, held some joint assets on resulting trust for the estate, and upheld the house transfer to Michael.
RBC succeeded in setting aside a transfer of Bradley Clarke’s property interest as a fraudulent conveyance intended to hinder creditors.
The appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's factual findings that the respondent did not convey the RRSP with the intents required by s.2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act; appellate deference is owed to trial findings of fact absent palpable and overriding error.
Source excerpt
The trial judge found the 1997 transfer was part of a marital settlement predating the appellant's demand and proceedings, and that Paloma provided substantial consideration (relinquishment of support and loan repayment), and had no notice of fraudulent intent; those factual findings were not palpably and overridingly erroneous, so s.2 was not established and s.3 protected the transferee, requiring dismissal of the appeal.
Source excerpt
The trial judge permissibly concluded the conspiracy claim was not made out on the record; because the appellant sought to raise statutory causes of action for the first time on appeal, the Court declined to entertain those matters and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Source excerpt
Appeal dismissed because the application judge's factual findings sustain the conclusion that appellant did not prove the requisite intent to obtain relief under s.2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, and because the alternative beneficial‑ownership argument could not be raised for the first time on appeal without necessary factual findings.
Source excerpt
Explore more
