CAUTION: We have been advised that fraudulent emails with a modified domain name have been sent by a source purporting to be from Aird & Berlis LLP. These communications are not legitimate and are not from Aird & Berlis LLP. Disregard any such emails and do not engage with the sender or the email in any way. Please report the attempted fraud by contacting the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre and by emailing Aird & Berlis LLP at help@airdberlis.com.

Back to all publications
Mar 6, 2020

Anisman v. Drabinsky: Claim to Set Aside Fraudulent Conveyance of Land Subject to Real Property Limitations Act 10-Year Limitation Period

By Sam Babe

On February 25, 2020, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “OSCJ”) released its decision in Anisman v. Drabinsky,1 holding, among other things, that the limitation period for attacking a transfer of real property as fraudulent under the Ontario Fraudulent Conveyances Act2 (the “FCA”) is the applicable ten-year limitation period under the Ontario Real Property Limitations Act3 (the “RPLA”), rather than the two-year basic limitation period under the Ontario Limitations Act, 20024 (the “Limitations Act”).

The Limitations Act explicitly excludes from its application proceedings to which the RPLA applies.5 Section 4 of the RPLA states:

4.         No person shall make an entry or distress, or bring an action to recover any land or rent, but within ten years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, first accrued to some person through whom the person making or bringing it claims, or if the right did not accrue to any person through whom that person claims, then within ten years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, first accrued to the person making or bringing it.

In Anisman v. Drabinsky, Justice Morgan followed the OSCJ’s earlier decision in Conde v. Ripley et al.6 (“Conde”) to hold that a claim brought under the FCA to have a conveyance of real property declared void is a claim “to recover any land” to which section 4 of the RPLA applies.7 In Conde, Justice Dunphy had reasoned:

An FCA claim, if successful, does no more or less than invalidate the impugned transfer as against “creditors or others” of whom the plaintiff is obviously an exemplar. Where the conveyance attacked is of real property, such an action is thus quite literally an “action to recover land” since the outcome of the action, if successful, is to “recover” the land to the estate of the transferor (in this case Mr. Ripley) so that – once so recovered – it can respond to the claims of creditors or others as if it had never been transferred. The outcome of the plaintiff’s claim against the transferor may well be a money judgment – the outcome of the claim against the transferee under the FCA is an order “to recover land” which is then available to satisfy that claim.8

Justice Dunphy’s conclusion in Conde was, however, previously rejected by Justice Faieta of the OSCJ in Wilfert v. McCallum (“Wilfert”), who held that an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of land is not an action to recover land for purposes of section 4 of the RPLA.9 Citing two Ontario Court of Appeal decisions,10 Justice Faieta interpreted the phrase “recover any land” in section 4 of the RPLA to mean “obtain any land by judgment of the Court” and held that a creditor does not obtain land by judgment of the Court simply because the creditor might benefit financially from a declaration setting aside a transfer of such land.11 Because Wilfert was not considered by Justice Morgan in Anisman v. Drabinsky, the dispute over interpretation of the phrase “recover any land” is, unfortunately, left unresolved.

It can be noted that Justice Faieta’s logic in Wilfert would not apply to a trustee in bankruptcy or a receiver attacking a transfer of land under the FCA, as such a court officer would stand in the shoes of the debtor who regains title upon the transfer being set aside.

Anisman v. Drabinsky is the second recent decision to affirm the application of an RPLA limitation period over the two-year Limitations Act basic limitation period. In its December 18, 2019 decision in Hilson v. 1336365 Alberta Ltd.,12 the Ontario Court of Appeal held that claims on personal guarantees of mortgage loans were subject to the ten-year limitation period under subsection 43(1) of the RPLA.13

The Financial Services Group at Aird & Berlis regularly advises creditors and court officers in actions under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act,14 the FCA and the Ontario Assignments and Preferences Act15 attacking preferential, fraudulent and undervalue transactions. Details are available at our Financial Services webpage.


1 Anisman v. Drabinsky, 2020 ONSC 1197 (OSCJ).

2 Fraudulent Conveyances Act, RSO 1990, c F.29.

3 Real Property Limitations Act, RSO 1990, c L.15, section 43(1).

4 Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, Sch B, at section 4.

5 Ibid, at subsection 2(1)(a).

6 Conde v. Ripley et al., 2015 ONSC 3342, at paragraph 2.

7 Anisman v. Drabinsky, supra note 1, at paragraphs 56 and 61.

8 Conde, supra note 6, at paragraph 41. Justice Dunphy contrasted this, at paragraphs 2 and 43, with an action under the FCA to recover personal property which would be subject to the two-year Limitations Act period.

9 Wilfert v. McCallum, 2017 ONSC 3853 (OSCJ).

10 Hartman Estate v. Hartfam Holdings Ltd., [2006] OJ No 69 (ONCA), at paragraph 57; and McConnell v. Huxtable, 2014 ONCA 86, at paragraph 19.

11 Wilfert, supra note 9, at paragraphs 25 to 26.

12 Hilson v. 1336365 Alberta Ltd., 2019 ONCA 1000 (ONCA); upholding Hilson v. 1336365 Alberta Ltd., 2018 ONSC 1836 (OSCJ).

14 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3.

15 Assignments and Preferences Act, RSO 1990, c A.33.

Related Publications

Publications Article
How One Lawyer Helps Young Litigators Through Modern Training By Aaron Baer Jan 15, 2021 Law students and young lawyers often find themselves in the world of unknown unknowns. And that i... Law students and young lawyers often find themselves in the world of unknown unknowns. And that is a dangerous and very stressful place to reside.
Publications Article
New COVID-19 Measures Introduced by Province and City of Toronto: What a Stay-at-Home Order and the New Reporting Obligations Mean for Employers By Lorenzo Lisi, Daria (Dasha) Peregoudova and Stacey Blydorp Jan 14, 2021 The Ontario government, following a review of current COVID-19 modelling trends, announced on Jan... The Ontario government, following a review of current COVID-19 modelling trends, announced on January 12, 2021, a stay-at-home order that took effect on Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 12:01a.m.
Publications Article
Inclusionary Zoning – What Does It Mean for My Development Project? By Eileen P. K. Costello and John Pappas Jan 13, 2021 The City of Toronto has released details of its proposed inclusionary zoning framework. While fin... The City of Toronto has released details of its proposed inclusionary zoning framework. While final approval by Council is still many months away, the details of the report paint a clearer picture for the development community in Toronto of what is to come.