Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Salna v. Hie, 2008 ONCA 677

Date: 2008-10-03

Docket: C48057

Between:

Robert Salna Appellant (Plaintiff)

and

Elizabeth Joy Hie also known as Joy E. Hie, Ernest H. Toomath, Mati Karli Truman also known as Mati K. Truman, John Doe and Jane Doe Respondents (Defendants)

Before: Doherty, Cronk and MacFarland JJ.A.

Counsel: Derrick M. Fulton, for the appellant No one appearing for the respondents

Heard: October 1, 2008

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Paul Perell of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 20, 2007.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] Although we are sympathetic to the appellant’s position, we conclude that this appeal must be dismissed.

[2] It was open to the application judge to hold that the evidentiary record before him was insufficient to establish the requisite intent by the respondent Hie to defeat, hinder, delay or defraud the appellant’s interests as a creditor. While we might have reached a different conclusion, we see no basis for appellate interference with this critical factual finding. As the application judge pointed out, there was nothing inherently suspicious in the transaction at issue – a structured settlement in a personal injury action.

[3] Nor do we see any error in the application judge’s discretionary decision to refrain from drawing an inference against the respondent Hie in the circumstances of this case. The application judge was not obliged to draw such an inference.

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.