DATE: 20030211

DOCKET: C38412

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: WILLIAM GENEREUX (Applicant/Appellant) – and – RICHARD THEODOR CARLSTROM and FRANCES KATHLEEN CARLSTROM (Respondents)

BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., O’CONNOR A.C.J.O. AND GOUDGE J.A.

COUNSEL: Anthony Moustacalis

For the appellant

Richard Carlstrom

(In person)

HEARD: February 5, 2003

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Donald R. Cameron of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 7, 2002.

E N D O R S E M E N T

Released Orally February 5, 2003

[1] The appellant’s first argument is, in essence, that Mr. Carlstrom retain beneficial ownership of his half interest in the property despite the conveyance of legal title to his wife. This argument was not put with any clarity to the application judge nor adjudicated by him. We would not give effect to it because it is not appropriately dealt with for the first time on appeal to this court, in the absence of the necessary findings of fact.

[2] As to the appellant’s second argument, in our view, there was ample evidence before the application judge to sustain his conclusion that the appellant did not establish the intent necessary to obtain relief under s. 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

[3] At the time of the conveyance, Mr. Carlstrom had an income, and prospects of future income, sufficient to meet his current and anticipated liabilities. Moreover Mr. Genereux knew about the transfer and was satisfied that it was not done with intent to defraud. The application judge’s conclusion is eminently sustainable.

[4] The appeal must be dismissed. No order as to costs.

“R.R. McMurtry C.J.O.”

“D. O’Connor A.C.J.O.”

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”