Legal Blog:
Intention
Debtors who have fraudulently conveyed their property, usually to their spouses, often claim that they had always intended to transfer the property and, in doing so, they were not trying to defeat their creditors; they were simply trying to give effect to pre-made plans. The latest case in which this defence was used is Royal Bank of Canada v. Clarke, a 2009 decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court.
Continue Reading >Wills
Sometimes, the only asset that a creditor can seize from a debtor is a bequest to the debtor under the will of someone who has died. The creditor must move swiftly because once the estate trustee pays the money, the debtor may not be forthcoming as to where it went. The goal is to intercept the payment. An attempted interception was the subject of Ker Estate v. DeRose, a 2009 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Continue Reading >Non-Comp Revisited
Since we are in an “I told you so mood”, we will also report on the ultimate effect of a non-competition covenant in an employment agreement. The covenant was dealt with in H.L. Staebler Co. v. Allen [2008] O.J. No. 3048 (C.A.).
Continue Reading >Demand
The decision in Hare v. Hare (2006), 83 O.R. (3d) 766 (C.A.) (i.e. the limitation period on a demand note runs from the date of the loan rather than the date of the demand) has been ameliorated by the 2008 amendment to the Limitations Act, 2002 (sections 5(3) and 5(4)). How does this affect a demand note whose limitation period had expired under the old rules? This question was answered in Berry v. IPC Securities Corp. [2009] O.J. No. 1598 (SCJ).
Continue Reading >Contingency Fees
The Solicitors Act was amended a while ago to specifically allow for contingency fees, although, before the amendment, the practice was widespread and judicially recognised. Are lawyers following the rules set out in the Act? We suspect not. This has unintended consequences, some of which were set out inĀ Du Vernet v. 1017682 Ontario Ltd. 2009 CarswellOnt 3275 (Ont SCJ).
Continue Reading >