Case information

Charter of Rights — Fundamental justice — Security for costs — Judgments and orders — Summary judgments — Ex husband of deceased initiating fraudulent conveyance claim for negligent transfer of property to children notwithstanding ongoing family law application for beneficial interest in subject property — Lengthy history of non compliance with costs orders of ex husband — Law firm respondents successfully seeking security for costs in order for fraudulent conveyance claim to proceed — Leave to appeal security for costs order not properly sought by ex husband — Security for costs not posted by ex husband — Ex husband unsuccessfully moving for summary judgment of fraudulent conveyance claim — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 194, r. 56.01(1)(a).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Mr. Weidenfeld, commenced a fraudulent conveyance action in 2016. He alleges in that action that the transfer of a property by his deceased ex wife to their children in 2014 was effected to defeat a related family law application in which he claimed a beneficial interest in the subject property. He also claims against the deceased’s real estate lawyers in negligence for having registered the transfer of the property to his children without having investigating the outstanding family law claims. The related family law application was commenced in 2006, over a decade following the parties’ divorce and while Mr. Weidenfeld’s ex wife was still alive. The family law proceedings were stayed at the time of the alleged fraudulent conveyance. Mr. Weidenfeld has a history of non compliance of costs and other orders before the courts of Ontario and New Brunswick. In light of this history, the law firm respondents successfully moved for security for costs in connection with Mr. Weidenfeld’s fraudulent conveyance claim. Mr. Weidenfeld did not post security for costs and failed to seek leave to appeal the security for costs order. He then moved for summary judgment of his fraudulent conveyance claim. The Superior Court dismissed his motion for summary judgment, and the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal dismissed his motions for leave to appeal.