Brian Mark Morris

The defendants, Alfonso and Helen Fulchini, moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered on Helen's property, Elizabeth Grove, which was obtained ex parte by the Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS).

The BNS's claim to an interest in the land was based on an alleged fraudulent conveyance by Alfonso to Helen of proceeds from the sale of another property, Easy Street, which were then traced into Elizabeth Grove.

The court found that the BNS had a reasonable claim to an interest in Elizabeth Grove, citing several "badges of fraud" in the transfer of funds between the spouses and the lack of credible evidence of consideration.

The court also rejected the defendants' arguments that damages were an adequate alternative remedy and that the CPL should be discharged due to non-disclosure by the BNS at the ex parte motion.

The motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed, though the court allowed for the CPL to be discharged if the defendants posted cash security.

The applicant sought the appointment of a receiver over the respondent’s assets pursuant to a general security agreement securing obligations under a master purchase agreement and grid promissory note relating to solar photovoltaic projects.

The respondent argued the security covered only certain up-front fees and that payment obligations had not yet matured due to alleged contractual cure periods and funding obligations.

The court rejected these interpretations, finding that both engineering, procurement, and construction fees and up-front fees were secured obligations and that the amounts owing were past due.

Given the outstanding debt and the contractual security rights, the court held that the appointment of a receiver was appropriate to manage and sell the underlying solar projects in an orderly process protecting stakeholder interests.

The applicants sought an order directing that funds collected by a court‑appointed receiver from proceeds payable to the respondent be paid to them.

The evidence established that one of the applicants was a creditor of the respondent for more than $1.2 million arising from a loan guarantee and secured by a general security agreement.

The respondent withdrew its opposition at the hearing, while a third-party creditor requested that the successful applicant’s payment be held in court pending potential litigation.

The court held that the applicant’s creditor claim clearly ranked ahead of any shareholder interest and rejected the request to hold the funds as premature security for an uncommenced action.

The motion was granted directing payment of most of the fund to the creditor applicant.

The appellant appealed his conviction for disobeying a "No Heavy Trucks" sign contrary to section 182(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial justice convicted the appellant after finding that the dump truck he was operating fell within the plain and ordinary meaning of "heavy truck," despite the absence of a statutory definition in the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial justice properly applied principles of statutory interpretation and that the evidence clearly established the vehicle was a heavy truck based on its characteristics and the context of the regulation.