Legal Blog

Limitations Act

Stravino v. Buttinelli 2015 Ont SCJ

Husband attempting to join children in Family Law Act application against wife, claiming that wife fraudulently conveyed land to children. Judge stated that the fraudulent conveyance claim was, unlike a claim for a constructive trust, not a claim seeking entitlement to ownership in land, as was the case in McConnell v. Huxtable, but rather a claim, in this case, to have the value of property available for equalisation. Accordingly, the basic 2 year limitation period governed, rather than the 10 year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act. We can understand why husband would want the property in wife’s name so that property would be available to him to satisfy a support award. We cannot understand why it would be relevant to equalisation of net family property. The separation date occurred long before the impugned transfer of the property and equalisation is calculated as of the separation date. We would distinguish this case from the non-family law scenario in which there is not merely a request that property be transferred back for purposes of an accounting, but a request that property be re-transferred so that it can be seized by creditors.

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