The plaintiff corporation purchased a 37-acre rural property from the defendant corporation, whose sole director was the individual defendant husband.
The defendant wife alleged that the husband had previously forged her signature to transfer the property into his corporation's name and that the sale to the plaintiff was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat her claims in their ongoing family law proceedings, contrary to a non-depletion order.
The court found that while the conveyance by the husband was fraudulent, the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under s. 3 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.
The plaintiff paid good consideration, based on expert appraisal evidence of the property's current rural zoning, and had no actual or constructive knowledge of the husband's fraudulent intent or the family law non-depletion order.
The court also held that the plaintiff was protected by the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility under s. 78(4.2) of the Land Titles Act and the indoor management rule.
The wife was ordered to remove the non-depletion order from title.
