Shaun Arif Hashim

The appellants, judgment creditors of the respondent McCallum from a defamation action, sought a stay pending their appeal of a motion judge's decision dismissing their action under Rule 21.

The action sought to set aside a 1993 conveyance of McCallum's interest in the matrimonial home to his wife Boughner as a fraudulent conveyance under section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The motion judge found the appellants lacked standing as "creditors or others" under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The appellants moved for a stay to prevent Boughner from disposing of the property pending appeal.

The motion was dismissed on the basis that there was no serious issue to be tried and no evidence of irreparable harm or balance of convenience favoring the stay.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add the manufacturer and dealership of the plaintiff's vehicle as defendants, alleging negligence for the lack of side impact airbags.

The proposed defendants argued the motion was brought after the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's severe brain injury raised a live issue regarding his capacity to commence a proceeding, which could toll the limitation period.

Furthermore, there was a live issue regarding when the plaintiffs could have reasonably discovered the proposed defendants' involvement and the lack of side airbags.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs' claim, which alleged a fraudulent conveyance, was dismissed because they lacked standing under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unproved and serious allegations of fraud constituted reprehensible conduct warranting elevated costs.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $20,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action, which sought to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance, on three grounds: lack of standing, the claim being statute-barred, and lack of legal capacity.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the action.

The primary reason for dismissal was the plaintiffs' lack of standing under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, as they were not "creditors or others" at the time of the impugned transfer in 1993.

Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to obtain proper court approval under section 38(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to commence proceedings against the non-bankrupt transferee.

The court disagreed that the claim was barred by the Real Property Limitations Act, finding that an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is not an action to "recover land."

The appellant brought an application for a declaration that an arbitrator had no authority to reopen an arbitration.

The application judge dismissed the application as premature, directing that the matter should proceed before the arbitrator first to create a complete record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the application judge's exercise of discretion, noting that the efficient operation of the arbitral process is best served by having an initial determination made by the arbitrator.