Jerry Levitan

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance action.

The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in applying the law relating to the burden of explanation.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly concluded the threshold necessary to shift the burden of explanation to the defendant had not been reached, noting the absence of evidence regarding other creditors or the defendant's inability to meet debts at the time of the conveyance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the threshold necessary to shift the burden of explanation to the defendant, as set out in Koop v. Smith, had not been reached due to a lack of evidence regarding other creditors or inability to meet debts.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.