23 total
Appeal allowed; motion judge erred by refusing to draw reasonable inferences from undisputed facts in receivership sale.
The appellant, Home Depot, appealed orders authorizing a receiver to sell a property free and clear of Home Depot's leasehold and equitable interests.
The motion judge had refused to draw inferences regarding whether the first mortgagee had impliedly consented to Home Depot's lease, stating he could only rely on undisputed facts.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by applying an incorrect standard of proof and failing to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.
The matter was remitted for a new hearing.
Appeal dismissed as there was no evidence of respondents initiating proceedings and no triable issue.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the respondents initiated the proceedings and no issue requiring a trial.
Costs were fixed at $5,000.
Fraudulent conveyance actions are not subject to the six-year limitation period for actions upon the case.
The appellant law partnership, a creditor of a bankrupt management company, brought an action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act to set aside a transfer of assets to a related company.
The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding it was barred by the six-year limitation period in the Limitations Act or by the equitable doctrine of laches.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is neither an action on a simple contract nor an action upon the case, and thus is not caught by the six-year limitation period.
The Court also found a triable issue regarding whether the respondents suffered prejudice sufficient to establish the defence of laches.