Sean N. Zeitz

The plaintiff moved for judgment under Rule 49.09 to enforce a $35,000 settlement agreement reached with the defendants regarding a dispute over recruitment services.

The defendants argued the settlement should not be enforced due to the plaintiff's alleged bad faith in failing to disclose it had hired two candidates presented by the defendants.

The court found the plaintiff had no knowledge the candidates were referred by the defendants and made no misrepresentations.

Applying a two-step analysis, the court concluded a binding agreement existed and there was no good reason not to enforce it.

The motion was granted and the settlement enforced.

A creditor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to set aside a transfer of a debtor’s interest in the matrimonial home to his spouse as a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The debtor had personally guaranteed a corporate loan and transferred his joint interest in the home to his spouse for nominal consideration during the period when the corporation was seeking loan accommodations.

The court found multiple badges of fraud, including the non-arm’s-length relationship, lack of consideration, timing of the transfer, and the effect of placing the debtor’s only significant asset beyond the reach of creditors.

The court held that the conveyance was made with intent to defeat, hinder, delay, or defraud creditors and that no genuine issue required a trial.

Summary judgment was granted setting aside the transfer as void against the creditor.

The appellant, an unsecured judgment creditor of the respondent's husband, appealed an order setting aside the transfer of the matrimonial home from the respondent to her husband.

The motion judge had found the transfer was void due to undue influence and, alternatively, that the husband held the property in trust for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the finding of undue influence could not stand because it was not pleaded, depriving the appellant of procedural fairness.

However, the Court upheld the finding that the respondent did not intend to gift the property and held an interest by way of resulting or constructive trust, remitting the matter to determine the extent of that interest.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment finding her personally liable to the respondent bank under section 100 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The motion judge found that the appellant's company and her father's bankrupt company engaged in a non-arm's length transaction for less than fair market value, and that the appellant was privy to the transaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as the sole principal and controlling mind of her company, was privy to the transaction because she had knowledge of it and benefited from it.

The respondent's cross-appeal for substantial indemnity costs was also dismissed.

The parties arbitrated their family law dispute, resulting in an award requiring the husband to pay an equalization payment out of his share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The husband subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The motion judge incorporated the arbitration award into a court order and granted the wife priority over the husband's unsecured creditors, finding the award created an equitable trust.

The motion judge also ordered the transfer of the husband's bankruptcy-exempt RRSP to the wife.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitration award did not effect a division of property or impose an equitable trust or assignment that would defeat the bankruptcy scheme.

The Court also set aside the RRSP transfer, as no such relief was claimed in the arbitration and the motion judge erred in using enforcement proceedings to grant a new proprietary remedy.

The plaintiff bank sought leave to appeal an order setting aside an ex parte order for the seizure and sale of the defendants' property.

The motion judge had set aside the ex parte order because the bank failed to provide full and fair disclosure of material facts, including the defendants' location and financial status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision regarding the high standard of disclosure required for ex parte orders.