Ontario Court Recognizes US Judgment, stating “there are no reasons not to enforce” the US Judgment

Gilbertson Davis LLPCivil Liability, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Debt and Enforcing Judgments, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments0 Comments

In the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“ONSC”), Runco v. Engenheiro, 2023 ONSC 4767, the applicant sought recognition and enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester (the “Foreign Judgment”), among other relief, including the appointment of a receiver to sell her apartment building that she jointly owned with the respondent. The Foreign Judgment incorporated the Parties’ divorce agreement and required that the applicant receive US$500,000 in exchange for her interest in the apartment building. The respondent defended the application, citing to multiple reasons why the application should not be granted, including that the Foreign Judgment was not final. The ONSC disagreed, opining that the Foreign Judgment was final because the time to appeal or bring a motion to renew is “well out of time”. The ONSC based its decision on the opinion of an expert witness (an … Read More

Sabrina Saltmarsh Presents as Part of Panel on Fraud in Real Property Transactions

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

Sabrina Saltmarsh presented as a Panelist at this year’s Unveiling Scary Issues, Frauds and Failures in Ontario Property Transactions, held by the Ontario Bar Association. The Panel discussion included: A cautionary tale for lawyers about potential signs of fraud in real estate transactions and insights and tips from Lawpro; the role of certificates of pending litigation in the preservation of rights and assets when dealing with fraud in real property transactions; and a discussion of the recent Court of Appeal ruling of Froom v. LaFontaine, 2023 ONSC 318, as it relates to the theory of deferred indefeasibility. Sabrina provided insights to the audience of real estate solicitors and litigators on challenging and unique issues related to fraud litigation and important principles and strategy considerations in obtaining or discharging a certificate of pending litigation related to real property. Lawyers at Gilbertson Davis LLP, have experience in representing parties in fraud litigation … Read More

Fraudulent Conveyance Act Protects Future Potential Creditors

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Business Fraud, Commercial Litigation, Creditors Rights, Embezzlement, Fraud, Fraud Recovery, Fraudulent Schemes, International Trade Fraud, Investment Fraud, Securities Fraud0 Comments

In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Ontario Securities Commission v. Camerlengo Holdings Inc., 2023 ONCA 93, the Court of Appeal overturned a motion judges decision to strike the Ontario Securities Commission’s (“OSC”) claim made pursuant to s.2 of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F. 19 (“FCA”) due to lack of particularity. The Court of Appeal held that it is not necessary for a creditor to be known to the debtor at the time of a potentially fraudulent conveyance, it is enough that the debtor perceived a risk of claims from a general class of future creditors and conveyed the property with the intention to evade such creditors if they arose. The Facts Fred Camerlengo a retired electrician and the sole director of the Defendant corporation, Camerlengo Holdings Inc. (Holdco), conveyed his interest in the family home to his wife Mirella Camerlengo, a retired teacher, which was … Read More

Rescission May Be Available Even If Innocent Third Parties Adversely Affected

Sabrina Saltmarsh, B.A. (Hons), J.D.Business Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Construction Litigation, Contract Disputes, Real Estate Litigation0 Comments

In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Urban Mechanical Contracting Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 ONCA 589, the Court of Appeal considered whether rescission is ever available as a matter of law when the rights of innocent third parties intervene and restitutio in integrum (putting the parties back to their original position) is impossible. The court answered in the affirmative. In the case the appellants brought two applications seeking a determination of whether, as a matter of law, a bond issuer can rescind a bond agreement on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentations and collusion when doing so would affect the rights of innocent parties. Background The case dealt with a public-private redevelopment project with infrastructure Ontario to build a new 17-storey patient care tower (the Project). The construction was to be financed and carried out by the private sector. The Project was subject to Ontario’s procurement process … Read More

Are Examinations by Video Conference the “New Normal” During COVID-19?

Nick P. Poon, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.A., J.D.Civil Litigation, Commercial, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Investment | Financial Services, Investment Fraud, Professional Liability, Securities Fraud, Securities Litigation0 Comments

On March 17, 2020, Ontario declared a State of Emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ushered in a new era of physical and social distancing rules.  Individuals are required to maintain a minimum distance of two metres from any other person who is not a member of the same household.  Gatherings of more than five people are banned unless they are members of a single household. Since March 17, 2020, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has suspended all regular operations, including hearings for civil matters except urgent and time-sensitive motions and applications and other limited matters such as consent motions in writing.  Most of these hearings are conducted in writing, or remotely by telephone or video conference, due to physical and social distancing rules.  In-person hearings would only be granted in very limited circumstances. Although the Court may be closed for the time being, civil litigants and their … Read More

The Supreme Court of Canada On Defence Against the Tort of Conversion (Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust)

Janice Perri, B.A. (Summa Cum Laude)Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Business Law, Business Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Employee Fraud, Finance Litigation, Financial Services | Investment, Fraud, Fraud Recovery, Fraudulent Schemes, Investment | Financial Services0 Comments

In Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust, Teva Canada Ltd. (“Teva”), a pharmaceutical company, “was the victim of a fraudulent cheque scheme implemented by one of its employees”, (para 1). Teva claimed the collecting banks were liable for the tort of conversion. Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust provides insight into the Bills of Exchange Act‘s (“BEA”) section 20(5) defence to the tort of conversion, by clarifying the approach used to determining whether a payee is “fictitious or non-existing”. In the event that a payee is deemed fictitious or non-existing within the meaning of section 20(5) of the BEA, the bill may be treated as payable to the bearer, and thus can be negotiated by simple “delivery” to the bank meaning endorsement is not required, and the defence will succeed (para 5). Justice Abella, writing for the majority, outlined the two-step framework a bank must satisfy to demonstrate that a payee is fictitious or … Read More