Philip Healey

The appellant sought to set aside four property transfers made by the respondent to his wife and her company under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The trial judge found the 1987 and 1988 transfers were not fraudulent, but set aside the 1992 and 1993 transfers of the matrimonial home and a Florida property.

Both parties appealed the trial judge's findings of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, his refusal to pierce the corporate veil, or his rejection of the laches defence.

Motions to admit fresh evidence were also dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order denying them leave to amend their statement of claim.

The proposed amendments sought a declaration that s. 30 of the Pension Act violates s. 7 of the Charter, aiming to access the respondent's federal pension to enforce any future judgment arising from an assault.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the declaratory relief should have been sought against the federal government and was premature before a final determination of the current issues.

However, the court allowed amendments to the claim against Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario.

The applicants sought a determination of the shareholders of 7538715 Canada Ltd. and whether the respondent Mohammad Petgar was an authorized director.

The applicants claimed they owned 100% of the shares and provided all the investment money.

The respondent claimed he and his estranged wife, the primary applicant, each owned 50% of the shares.

The court reviewed documentary evidence, including a shareholders agreement and bank guarantees, and found that the respondent and his estranged wife were each 50% shareholders.

The court also found that the respondent was an authorized director of the company.

The Court of Appeal released an addendum on costs following an appeal.

The court found that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis, but determined that the amounts sought by the respondents were excessive.

Costs were fixed at $17,500 for the main group of respondents and $10,000 for the respondent Hemming.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim of conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conclusion was available on the record despite gaps and contradictions in the evidence.

The Court declined to entertain new arguments regarding the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignment and Preferences Act, as they were raised for the first time on appeal and lacked the trial judge's review.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.