Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether Jason and/or Anastasia Yonick entered into a binding contract with G. Tackaberry & Sons Construction Company Limited for post-September 2023 construction materials at 3437 Latimer Drive.
• Serious evidentiary gaps regarding the alleged debt, including lack of purchase orders, unsigned delivery tickets, misaddressed invoices to a London, Ontario address, and the defendants’ denial of ordering or receiving the disputed materials.
• Contested question of whether Anastasia is a contracting party or merely made advance payments from a joint account for materials she and Jason acknowledge receiving earlier in the project.
• Challenge to a February 2, 2024 transfer of the Latimer Drive property from Anastasia to her mother, Tatiana Ivanov, as a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, based on alleged “badges of fraud.”
• Inability of the court on a paper record to make necessary findings about Anastasia’s financial condition, intent, and the presence of multiple “badges of fraud” at the time of the transfer.
• Central, unresolved credibility conflicts on both the contract and fraudulent conveyance issues, leading the court to find genuine issues requiring a trial and to dismiss Cash Flow Recoveries Inc.’s summary judgment motion.

Facts of the case

Cash Flow Recoveries Inc. is a collection agency that took an assignment of an alleged trade debt owed to G. Tackaberry & Sons Construction Company Limited (“Tackaberry”) by Jason and Anastasia Yonick. The alleged debt arises from the supply of construction materials for a custom-built home at 3437 Latimer Drive, Elginburg, Ontario, a property owned solely by Anastasia before it was later transferred to her mother, Tatiana Ivanov. Cash Flow’s case is that Jason and Anastasia contracted with Tackaberry for various materials commonly used in septic tile bed installations, driveway construction, and backfilling around a new home. Tackaberry issued invoices to Jason in July, August and September 2023. Between July 28 and September 25, 2023, Jason and Anastasia paid Tackaberry a total of $16,569.08 on account of these materials. After September 25, 2023, no further payments were made. Cash Flow alleges that despite non-payment, Jason continued to order and receive construction materials, resulting in additional invoices to him that remained unpaid. Tackaberry then issued a finance charge invoice, and Cash Flow claims a total outstanding balance of $54,627.15, with contractual interest accruing at a stated rate of 26.82% per year as printed on the invoices. The defendants give a very different account. Jason says he first contacted Tackaberry in July 2023 strictly regarding materials for the septic system at Latimer Drive, that his account was “cash on delivery,” and that no credit application was ever required or completed. This was confirmed by a Tackaberry employee. According to Jason, the septic tank was installed on September 21, 2023, and all related materials were paid for in advance, with Anastasia’s contact number used so she could pre-pay before each delivery. The defendants deny ordering or receiving the additional materials forming the unpaid portion of the claim. Anastasia explains that the payments she did make came from a joint household account and were for materials they acknowledge receiving; she denies that this made her a party to any broader contract with Tackaberry.

Disputed evidence on orders, invoices and delivery

The documentary record surrounding the disputed materials is incomplete and contested. There are no order forms or internal telephone order records in evidence, despite Tackaberry’s controller confirming that the “typical process” when a customer calls in is to generate a written order noting the date, the materials and quantities, and the delivery address. Some delivery tickets have been produced, but none are signed by Jason, Anastasia, or any person on their behalf. The invoices that Cash Flow says remain unpaid are addressed to “Jason Yanick” (a misspelling of his surname) at an address in London, Ontario, which the defendants say is not their address. Tackaberry’s “final notice” of February 26, 2024 was also sent to that London address. The plaintiff offers no explanation for the use of this address. Jason and Anastasia both deny receiving the disputed invoices or the final notice, though Anastasia acknowledges receiving calls from Tackaberry regarding payments that were to be made in advance of delivery for materials they actually ordered. On this record, the judge concluded that the existence and scope of any contract for the supply of materials after late September 2023 is genuinely disputed. It is unclear whether Jason alone, Jason and Anastasia together, or no one on the alleged terms, entered into the agreement that Cash Flow asserts. These uncertainties, coupled with unsigned delivery documents and the wrong mailing address, prevent the court from treating the invoices and delivery slips as conclusive proof of the debt on a summary judgment motion.

Summary judgment framework and credibility concerns

Cash Flow brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial either on the debt or on the fraudulent conveyance claim. The court reviewed the modern summary judgment principles, including that summary judgment is appropriate only where the motion record permits a fair and just determination on the merits: the judge must be able to make the necessary findings of fact, apply the law to those facts, and do so in a proportionate, timely, and cost-effective manner. The court also emphasized the “best foot forward” rule: parties must put all their available evidence forward on a summary judgment motion, as the court can assume this is the evidence that would be called at trial. In evaluating whether summary judgment was suitable, the judge stressed the importance of credibility in this case. There had been no cross-examinations, and the parties’ evidence was in direct conflict on key issues: whether the materials were ordered, whether they were delivered, and whether Anastasia was contractually bound. The documentary record did not “overwhelm” the defendants’ denials; instead, gaps and irregularities in the documents tended to support the view that live testimony and cross-examination were required. Because credibility issues were central, and not a “near slam dunk,” the court held that these matters could not fairly be resolved on a paper record.

Fraudulent conveyance allegations and property transfer

In addition to seeking judgment on the alleged debt, Cash Flow asked the court to set aside a February 2, 2024 transfer of the Latimer Drive property from Anastasia to her mother, Tatiana, as a fraudulent conveyance under section 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act. The transfer was registered as a gift with no consideration, and on the same day a $650,000 mortgage in favour of a financial institution was registered against the property. The statutory test focuses on intent: whether the conveyance was made with the intent to defeat, hinder, delay or defraud creditors. Cash Flow argued that the recognized “badges of fraud” identified in recent appellate jurisprudence were present: a close family relationship between transferor and transferee, timing close to alleged collection efforts, absence of consideration, and effective divestment of the transferor’s assets. However, the court found that the record was insufficient to make reliable findings on several of these badges. Even assuming Anastasia was a debtor (itself a disputed point given the unresolved contract issues), there was no evidence about her overall financial condition—income, assets, solvency, or general ability to pay debts—such that the court could find her financial position “precarious.” Nor could the court conclude that the transfer effectively stripped her of substantially all her assets. The timing arguments also proved weak. While Cash Flow pointed to a notice of outstanding debt said to have been sent January 29, 2024, the record showed a “final notice” dated February 26, 2024, after the February 2 transfer, and addressed to the same London address that the defendants deny is theirs. The defendants did acknowledge receipt of a later notice from Cash Flow dated March 5, 2024, again after the transfer had been completed.

Justification for the transfer and unresolved intent

Anastasia provided a sworn explanation for the transfer of title to her mother. She stated that she had consulted a lawyer as early as August 2023, when she and Jason were still paying Tackaberry for materials they accept they ordered, to discuss transferring the Latimer Drive property to Tatiana. There was also some evidence that she followed up with her lawyer in November 2023, months before the February 2024 registration, due to delay in completing the transaction. Anastasia explained that the transfer was connected to Tatiana having obtained the construction mortgage for the property. Although the court did not assess the commercial wisdom or fairness of that justification, it accepted that some business rationale had been put forward. Given the incomplete financial picture, the disputable chronology of debt notices, and the existence of a non-fraud narrative for the transfer, the judge could not safely infer the requisite intent to defraud creditors on a summary judgment motion. As with the debt claim, questions of intent and credibility regarding the transfer were central and would require live evidence at trial.

Outcome and implications for the parties

Ultimately, the court held that this was not a “narrow, neat, and distinct” case suitable for summary disposition. The key issues—the existence and parties to any post-September 2023 supply contract, whether the disputed materials were ordered and delivered, Anastasia’s status as a debtor, and her intent in transferring the Latimer Drive property—are all intertwined and heavily dependent on contested credibility. Because the motion record did not permit the court to make the necessary factual and credibility findings in a fair and just way, the judge found there were genuine issues requiring a trial on both the alleged debt and the alleged fraudulent conveyance. Cash Flow Recoveries Inc.’s motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed. This means the defendants, Jason Yonick, Anastasia Yonick and Tatiana Ivanov, were successful on the motion, and no monetary judgment, damages, or specific costs award was granted or fixed in their favour or against them in this decision. The court instead invited brief written submissions on costs if the parties could not agree, so the exact quantum of any costs or monetary recovery cannot be determined from this judgment alone.