H. Niroomand

The plaintiffs, creditors of the bankrupt defendant, brought an action to set aside the conveyances of multiple real properties as fraudulent.

The defendant had transferred the properties to related individuals and shell corporations for nominal consideration shortly after defaulting on a business loan.

The court found that the defendant engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct, including forging documents and manipulating trust declarations, to shield her assets from creditors.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the court held that the conveyances were fraudulent and void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The properties were ordered to be sold with proceeds distributed to the plaintiffs and the bankruptcy trustee.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, the court received written submissions on costs.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $64,000 each.

The self-represented plaintiff, despite being unsuccessful, also sought costs and raised numerous objections to the defendants' claims.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claim for costs but reduced the defendants' claims to account for their unsuccessful summary judgment motion, a late pleading amendment, and unrecoverable items.

The court fixed costs at $35,000 payable by the plaintiff to each of the two active defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that a religious divorce certificate and related registry entry were fraudulently altered after execution to insert a waiver of her contractual entitlement to a marriage gift contained in a marriage contract.

She sought declarations invalidating the waiver and damages exceeding $2 million.

After an eight‑day trial, the court rejected the allegation of fraud, finding on a balance of probabilities that the waiver of the marriage gift was present in the documents when signed and that the plaintiff’s subsequent conduct was inconsistent with her claim of later alteration.

The court also held that, even if fraud had been proven, the action would have been barred by applicable limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action was dismissed.