Legal Blog

Fraudulent Conveyances & Limitations

Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Bokserman 2022 Ont CA

Motion judge granted an order that husband had fraudulently transferred the matrimonial home to wife and held that, after the matrimonial home was sold, wife held the replacement property in trust for husband’s creditor. The motion judge did not believe the defendants’ assertion that there was a separation agreement and a promissory note as consideration for the conveyance. Given that there were obvious badges of fraud, the Court of Appeal noted that the defendants had to satisfy the motion judge that they lacked a fraudulent intent when they transferred the home and failed to do so. The Court also agreed with the motion judge that the limitation period had not passed; nothing had alerted the creditor’s lawyer to search title. Also, the limitation period did not start until the appeal on the merits had been completed. The Court did not opine on whether the Limitation Act, 2002 or the Real Property Limitations Act applied.

Written by Jonathan Speigel, the founding partner of Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, leads the litigation and construction practices.