The deceased, knowing he was terminally ill, secretly transferred his business assets and the matrimonial home to his children to defeat his wife's equalization claim under the Family Law Act.
After his death, the wife elected to take an equalization payment rather than her legacy under the will and sought to set aside the transfers under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision setting aside the transfers, finding that the wife qualified as a 'creditor or other' under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act because she had an imminent right to apply for equalization at the time of the transfers.
The Court confirmed that the Family Law Act does not oust the operation of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.
