![]() The test for whether the transfer of property is rendered void under section 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, (“ FCA”) is one of intent: was the transfer of title done in order to defeat creditors? The analysis of this question is based on a list of factors or “badges of fraud” summarized in Incondo Building Corporation v Sloan, 2014 ONSC 4018 that must be considered as at the time of the impugned transaction. ![]() The Plaintiff became aware of the transfer in June 2019 when he conducted a search for title to the property in preparation for an examination in aid of execution. The Plaintiff brought an action with respect to the debt owed to him in January 2018 that resulted in a consent judgment against Drabinsky in the amount of $47,727.56, plus costs of $14,000.00. At the time of the transfer, Drabinsky had substantial debts, including to the Plaintiff for whom he had missed several monthly payments due under a settlement agreement. The Plaintiff was the lawyer who represented Drabinsky in Ontario Securities Commission proceedings between April 2013 and June 2014. ![]() The property in question was transferred to Drabinsky’s wife in September 2015. This summary judgment decision provides important guidance for creditors on how to approach issues relating to discoverability and limitation periods in the context of real property that may have been fraudulently conveyed. Drabinsky, 2020 ONSC 1197 Justice Morgan voided a transfer of a $2.625 million Toronto home for the nominal sum of $2 by Garth Drabinsky to his wife as a fraudulent conveyance as against Drabinsky’s former lawyer and other creditors. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |