Jaswant Mangat

The defendants moved to set aside an ex parte order that granted the plaintiff, Kevin Fernandes, leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property.

The plaintiff had previously sued Mohammad Salman Khalid for failing to complete a property purchase.

Mohammad later declared bankruptcy after transferring property interests to his wife and mother.

The plaintiff then initiated a second action to set aside these transfers as fraudulent conveyances and obtained the CPL.

The court considered two tests for CPLs in fraudulent conveyance actions: a prima facie case of fraud and a higher threshold test.

The court found numerous "badges of fraud," including unexplained property transfers, inconsistent separation dates, misleading addresses, and continued co-habitation, which raised compelling suspicions of intent to defeat creditors.

The court maintained the CPL, concluding that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case of fraud and that the balance of convenience favored preserving the CPL to prevent asset dissipation.

The applicant mother brought a motion for child support, daycare expenses, and costs for the child's permanent residence application.

The core issue was whether to impute income to the respondent father, who claimed a significant drop in income following a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the respondent to be highly evasive, lacking credibility, and actively concealing his true income, noting large unexplained bank deposits and a surreptitious recording of a questioning session.

The court imputed an income of $54,304 to the respondent based on his pre-separation earnings and ordered him to pay retroactive child support and a proportionate share of daycare and immigration expenses.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a default judgment granting a divorce and corollary relief, alleging the applicant fraudulently induced him not to file an answer.

The applicant cross-moved to dismiss the motion and sought to introduce secretly recorded telephone conversations to rebut the fraud allegation.

The court admitted the recordings, finding their probative value outweighed the policy against such evidence in family law.

Applying the test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found no fraud but concluded the respondent had an arguable case regarding access and that justice required a full hearing on support and property issues.

The default judgment was set aside.