COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-0298-00

DATE: 201207011

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Rita Sannuto

C. Tonks, for the Plaintiff

Plaintiff

• and -

Sonia Sannuto, Wesley Jackson, Rutman & Rutman Professional Corporation, Paolo Sannuto, Theodorus Vandermeer and Indocan Investment Corporation

D. Iny, for the Defendants, Wesley Jackson and Rutman & Rutman Professional Corporation

J. R. G. Cook, for the Defendant, Theodorus Vandermeer

M. Rovazzi, for the Defendant Indocan Investment Corporation

Defendants

HEARD: April 16, 2012, followed by written submissions

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Daley J.

[1] The motions brought by the parties relate to the alleged fraudulent transfer of the title of property municipally known as 17 Radford Drive, Brampton, Ontario (the "Property") and to the rights of the plaintiff, as the alleged true owner and of two mortgagees.

[2] The plaintiff initially instituted this action by statement of claim, issued on January 24, 2011 against the defendant Sonia Sannuto ("Sonia",) her daughter, and the defendants Wesley Jackson and Rutman & Rutman Professional Corporation a lawyer and law firm respectively ("the lawyers").

[3] On August 8, 2011, the plaintiff amended the statement claim to include as defendants her estranged husband Paolo Sannuto ("Paolo"), and two mortgagee's namely, Theodorus Vandermeer ("Vandermeer") and Indocan Investment Corporation (" I.I.C.").

[4] Following issuance of the statement of claim, the plaintiff registered a Certificate of Pending Litigation ("CPL") against the Property.

[5] Two motions were brought by the parties in this action. Firstly, a motion for Summary Judgment by I.I.C. seeking dismissal of the action against it. Secondly, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking default judgment against the defendant Sonia and summary judgment against the mortgagee's I.I.C. and Vandermeer.

[6] The defendant's Sonia and Paolo have not defended this action and have been noted in default.

[7] The lawyers are alleged to have been the solicitors involved in the conveyancing of the title to the Property from the plaintiff to the defendant Sonia.

Factual Background:

[8] The plaintiff and Paolo purchased the Property in 1977 as joint tenants.

[9] The defendant Sonia is the only child of the plaintiff and Paolo.

[10] The plaintiff and Paolo separated in 1987 and the plaintiff alleges that Paolo agreed to relinquish his interest in the Property as he did not intend on paying either child or spousal support.

[11] It is the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff that she and Paolo took no steps to change the title to the Property to reflect the agreement she alleges. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that she has had no contact with Paolo since their separation in 1987.

[12] In her affidavit filed in respect of these motions, the plaintiff states that she was born in Italy in 1951 and that she and Paolo immigrated to Canada in May of 1971.

[13] Further she states that, although having lived in Canada for approximately 40 years, her ability to understand and speak English is minimal. She swore the affidavit filed in support of her motion, after having had it interpreted from English to Italian.

[14] The plaintiff alleges in her affidavit that she requested that Sonia assist her in December, 2005, in having the title to the Property transferred into her name alone. At that time Sonia was employed at the defendant law firm.

[15] In early 2006, the plaintiff states that she attended at the lawyers' office and it is alleged that the plaintiff executed certain documents that she believed transferred title to the Property to her in her name alone.

[16] In actual fact, allegedly unknown to the plaintiff, the title to the Property was conveyed to Sonia.

[17] The plaintiff and Sonia continued to live in the Property and the plaintiff states that in March or April of 2010, she learned for the first time that the property was then in fact registered in Sonia's name.

[18] The plaintiff alleges that Sonia forged her name to obtain title to the Property and that she subsequently placed 12 mortgages on the Property, the two remaining mortgages being