Martin Zenia Goose

The plaintiff, Edward Sobie, as executor of Stanley Sobie's estate, brought a motion for a status hearing, a timetable, and an extension of time to set the action down for trial, and to reconstitute the action.

The defendants opposed and brought cross-motions to dismiss the action for delay, failure to properly constitute the action, and failure to obtain an order to continue.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the significant delay and did not establish that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The court also found that the action was not properly constituted from its inception and that the plaintiff failed to obtain an order to continue after the property's transfer.

Consequently, the plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a former business seller, sought relief against the respondents for fraudulent conveyance and oppression.

The original purchaser (216) defaulted on payments, leading to a default judgment against it.

Subsequently, the principal of 216, through his wife (Hee Kyung Shin), incorporated a new company (222) which took over the business and assets from 216 without consideration, while 216 was stripped of value.

The court found several "badges of fraud" surrounding the transfer of the business, indicating an intent to defraud creditors.

The court also determined that the actions of the officers and directors of 216 and 222 were oppressive and unfairly prejudiced the applicant as a creditor.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of assault against his wife.

At trial, the judge acquitted the respondent after finding the complainant credible but the respondent not credible, yet still having a reasonable doubt.

The trial judge had excluded evidence from the complainant's father regarding what the complainant told him on the phone during the incident, ruling it inadmissible hearsay.

The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in excluding this evidence, as it was admissible as a prior consistent statement to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication raised by the defence during cross-examination.

The appeal court held that admitting this evidence could have positively impacted the complainant's credibility and negatively impacted the respondent's, leading to a flawed application of the W.(D.) framework.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.