Romina Hassanzadeh

The appellant, a judgment creditor, appealed the dismissal of its application seeking a declaration of fraudulent conveyance and damages for unlawful conduct conspiracy against the respondents.

The appellant alleged that the transfer of shares by the debtor to Capital Dentistry Group Limited was a fraudulent conveyance and part of an unlawful conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was no fraudulent intent, noting that the transaction was initiated by an arm's length party, structured consistently with past deals, and occurred as part of a larger acquisition.

As fraudulent intent was not established, the essential element of unlawful conduct for the conspiracy claim failed.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellants and respondents own subdivided properties near Lake Ontario.

The appellants own a strip of land subject to an easement granting the respondents pedestrian access to use and enjoy the shores of Lake Ontario.

The appellants sought a declaration that the easement restricted the respondents to ingress and egress, and that 'shores' meant the area between the high and low water marks.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the respondents could use the grassy area of the strip for recreational activities.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred by relying on inadmissible subjective intent evidence.

The Court declared the easement restricts the respondents to pedestrian access for ingress and egress to the shores, defined as the land between the high and low water marks.

The applicant, a judgment creditor owed over $1.5 million by the respondent dentist, brought an application alleging that the respondent and others conspired to fraudulently convey his interest in several dental practices to a third-party corporation.

The applicant sought damages and a declaration that the sale was a conspiracy by unlawful means.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the sale was initiated by an arm's-length purchaser prior to the judgment, the consideration was consistent with standard industry practices, and there was no intent to defeat, hinder, delay, or defraud the applicant.

The defendant, Dr. Philip Ricciardi, brought a motion to prohibit Brian Ludmer from acting as counsel for the plaintiffs, Jefferson Wiggins et al., in a professional negligence action.

The defendant argued that Mr. Ludmer, having extensively interacted with Dr. Ricciardi as the plaintiff's previous family law counsel, would inevitably be a witness or rely on personal knowledge, creating a conflict of interest under the witness-advocate rule.

The defendant also raised a potential conflict regarding the limitation period defence.

The court granted the motion to prohibit Mr. Ludmer from acting due to the witness-advocate conflict, finding that his questioning would imply an 'unsworn offer of the lawyer’s version of the facts.' However, the court dismissed the limitation period conflict argument, as the plaintiff waived any claim against Mr. Ludmer.