Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Fraudulent Conveyances Act governed whether Bokserman's transfer of his interest in the Rollscourt Property to Krasnov was void against Midland as a judgment creditor.
   
• Interpretation of the Morgan Judgment was central, since the parties disagreed on whether it entitled Midland to a fixed sum or to a proportional interest in the Cortleigh Property.
   
• Equitable principles determined whether Krasnov should be given additional time to secure financing rather than have the Cortleigh Property sold immediately.
   
• Carrying costs and occupation rent were both claimed as set-offs, requiring the court to weigh competing equitable entitlements between the parties.
   
• Costs of the motion were assessed based on the extent to which each party succeeded on the issues raised.
   
• Terms of sale for the Cortleigh Property needed to be fixed, including how net proceeds would be distributed between Midland and Krasnov.
   

Facts of the case

Midland Resources Holding Limited is a judgment creditor of Eugene Bokserman, arising from a judgment of Sanderson J. that awarded Midland US$1,500,000 in damages for torts including deceit and false representation. Within two weeks of the Sanderson Judgment, Bokserman and his wife, Elena Krasnov, transferred title to their jointly held home on Rollscourt Drive into Krasnov's name alone, for no consideration. Krasnov later sold the Rollscourt property for $3,298,800, netting approximately $1,746,000, and used the proceeds to purchase the Cortleigh Property in her name alone for $2,010,000. In 2021, Morgan J. found the Rollscourt transfer to be a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat Midland's rights as a judgment creditor, declared 50% of Krasnov's interest in the Cortleigh Property held in trust for Midland, and authorized the sheriff to sell Cortleigh to realize the value fraudulently conveyed. That judgment was upheld on appeal, with leave to the Supreme Court of Canada refused. The present motion, heard by Mathen J. on April 23, 2026, addressed how the Morgan Judgment should be enforced, since Midland and Krasnov disagreed on its scope and on the treatment of carrying costs, occupation rent, and sale terms. Bokserman did not appear or make submissions.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The dispute turned on section 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.29, which renders void against creditors any conveyance made with intent to defeat, hinder, delay, or defraud them. Krasnov argued that an order under the Act does not effect a land transfer and does not make Midland a "registered owner" of Cortleigh, relying on the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Bank of Montreal v. Iskenderov. Midland argued that once property is successfully traced, it is entitled to any increase in value the property has experienced since the wrongdoing occurred.

Reasoning and analysis

Mathen J. rejected Krasnov's position that the Morgan Judgment capped Midland's recovery at half the net proceeds of the Rollscourt sale. The judge found that Morgan J. could have specified a fixed dollar figure but instead declared a trust interest in Cortleigh itself, which meant Midland was entitled to 50% of whatever Cortleigh realized on sale, including any increase in value. The judge found Krasnov's "windfall" argument misconceived, reasoning that any excess belonging solely to Krasnov would itself be the true windfall, since her sole ownership of Cortleigh existed only because of the fraudulent conveyance. On the question of financing, the court declined to give Krasnov time to refinance, citing the absence of evidence about her ability to obtain financing and the fact that her position in Cortleigh depended entirely on the earlier fraud. On carrying costs and occupation rent, the court held that beneficial owners can be required to contribute to carrying costs, including mortgage interest, and that occupation rent was available as an equitable remedy notwithstanding that this was not a family law or estate matter, particularly given Krasnov did not come to the proceeding with clean hands.

Ruling and overall outcome

The motion was granted in part. The court declared that Midland is entitled to 50% of the net proceeds from the sale of the Cortleigh Property, including any increase in value since Krasnov's purchase, and ordered that the property be listed and sold on specified terms rather than granting Krasnov time to secure financing. On the carrying-costs and occupation-rent set-off, the corrected reasons state that each party was entitled to 50% of its claims, with Krasnov's carrying costs figure of $399,103.04 and Midland's occupation rent claim of $952,400 producing a net credit in Midland's favour, adjusted on consent of counsel to $265,880 to reflect carrying costs to the end of April 2026. This credit is to be deducted from Krasnov's share of the sale proceeds and paid to Midland, along with $175,000 plus 2% interest from May 25, 2021, $1,777.00 plus 2% interest from January 28, 2022, and the costs award from this motion. Separately, the court fixed costs of the motion at $55,000, payable by the Defendants, Eugene Bokserman and Elena Krasnov, to Midland BVI.

Midland was the successful party overall, and the court fixed costs of the motion at $55,000 in its favour. Beyond that fixed sum, the decision does not state a total dollar figure for Midland's award, since Midland's core recovery is 50% of Cortleigh's eventual net sale proceeds and the property had not yet been sold at the time of this decision.