The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal and cross-appeal concerning a trial judge's decision on fraudulent conveyance and oppression claims.
The trial judge had found oppression but did not rule on fraudulent conveyance, basing the oppression finding on a theory not pleaded or argued.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons legally insufficient, internally inconsistent, and procedurally unfair, as the decision was based on an unpleaded "reasonable expectation" of a reserve fund.
The court determined it could not conduct a de novo analysis or substitute findings due to credibility issues and the record not inevitably yielding a particular outcome.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the trial judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial.
