2 total
Fraudulent conveyance claim not statute-barred where key facts discovered through receiver investigation.
The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing a fraudulent conveyance and knowing assistance action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The action arose from efforts to enforce a substantial divorce judgment where assets were allegedly transferred through corporate structures to defeat execution.
The court held that the material facts underlying the claims were not discoverable until an equitable receiver, appointed in aid of execution, obtained corporate records in 2010 that had previously been withheld.
The action commenced in 2012 was therefore within the limitation period.
The court also ruled that the defendant named as estate trustee of a deceased individual was not in fact the estate trustee but appointed her as litigation administrator of the estate under Rule 9.03(2).
Bad faith litigation conduct justified substantial indemnity costs.
Following an 8‑day motion to change relating to support obligations under a prior arbitration award, the court addressed costs.
The responding party on the motion had been successful in obtaining child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses, and sought full indemnity costs exceeding $340,000.
The court found the moving party acted unreasonably and in bad faith by concealing income, misleading his expert, breaching court orders, and rejecting a reasonable offer to settle.
Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle of proportionality, the court reduced certain disbursements and paralegal rates but concluded that substantial indemnity costs were justified.
Costs of $297,700.65 were awarded, payable in instalments, with a portion enforceable as part of the support order.
