Ontario court finds property transfers by convicted auto insurance fraudster represent an effort to put assets out of reach

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has upheld a summary judgment that set aside two property transfers by a convicted auto insurance fraudster over to his wife, ruling that the conveyances represented an attempt to put his assets out of “past and future victims of his fraudulent activities.”
“Between 1994 and 1996, [Gurnek] Singh masterminded an insurance fraud that led to losses that police investigators estimated at approximately $250,000,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Donald J. Taliano wrote in his decision in Pirbhai v. Singh.
The judge noted that victims of the fraud included Royal Insurance, Kingsway Insurance, Progressive Insurance, Halifax Insurance and General Insurance.
“Singh, who was in the business of repairing and selling damaged automobiles, acted with employees and associates to stage motor vehicle accidents,” Taliano wrote. “The scheme enabled him to present fraudulent claims to insurance companies for lost income and compensation for personal injuries, property damage and accident benefits.”
Singh’s fraudulent activities led to the laying of 21 charges against him in 1996. He pled guilty to two of the 21 counts of fraud and was convicted on these two counts in 1998, when he was fined $15,000. The other 19 charges against him were dropped.
Within a month of the charges being laid against him, he transferred his matrimonial home to his wife. A little over a year after his conviction, in May 1999, he then transferred his business property without valuable consideration to his wife.
These conveyances were challenged by a plaintiff who had arranged to buy a 1998 Lexus from Singh shortly after Singh’s conviction. In a separate action, a judge found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding him more than $200,000 in damages for breach of contract, deceit and misrepresentation.
The plaintiff subsequently succeeded in having a court set aside Singh’s conveyances in a summary judgment. The Ontario Superior Court upheld the summary judgment.
“In the circumstances of this case, the summary judgment court determined that the intent of this debtor was to put his assets out of the reach of past and future victims of his fraudulent activities,” the Ontario Superior Court ruled. “That finding was entirely justified on the evidence.”
The full case is available at:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2012/2012onsc345/2012onsc345.html