Theresa M. Hartley

The self-represented moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the motions judge.

The Divisional Court reviewed the materials and found the motion to be entirely without merit.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the responding parties.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay, citing a 15-year period since the action was commenced.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to place the action on the trial list.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the delay was due to settlement discussions.

However, the court dismissed the motion because the plaintiffs successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice by showing that all documentary evidence was preserved and witnesses were available and had been previously examined.

The defendants failed to show actual prejudice.

The action was ordered to be placed on the trial list.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim for unpaid commissions.

The trial judge had dismissed the claim, finding the contract was with the appellant's numbered company and the limitation period had expired.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in making these findings without hearing evidence.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant had previously initiated the same claim through her company more than two years before issuing the current claim, meaning the action was clearly statute-barred.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for damages equivalent to a judgment the respondent insurer had obtained against his wife.

The trial judge found that the appellant and his wife had fraudulently conveyed their jointly held matrimonial home to the appellant alone to defeat the respondent's claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding of fraudulent intent based on the 'badges of fraud' and the shifting burden of proof.

The Court also affirmed that under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act, the appellant held the proceeds of the subsequent sale of the property in trust for the respondent creditor.