The appellant challenged the trial judge’s conclusion that a purported purchase and sale transaction was not genuine and therefore was not bona fide for the purposes of s. 70 of the Registry Act.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge found the transaction to be a sham and that there was ample evidence supporting that conclusion, including back-dated documents, lack of due diligence, and deficiencies in the evidence.
A cross-appeal concerning slander of title, punitive damages, and costs was also dismissed, although leave to appeal costs was granted.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, except that a non-participating respondent was awarded no costs.