The success of every stratagem to extricate funds from the average, unassuming victim of the fraud is dependent on the understanding the victim may possess concerning the subject matter and also the victim's motivation. The success is really the fraudster's failure. You succeeded in anti-social behaviour in the commission of a criminal offence involving real property. You are now going to jail. You printed a document that looks like a municipality assessment with the Fraudster's name on it so you would cause people to believe you actually own the home. You say you paid the Mayor $70,000.00. Some recent scenarios involving property fraud involved property duly owned by one person where, for instance, such ownership was not properly communicated for some time to the owner but eventually ownership was communicated. In the mean time, the fraudster who may have little sympathy for the victims or the owners decided to offer the whole entire property for sale to another person. In fact, he offered the property to several other persons who actually wanted their money back. The fraudster said he does not know where the money is but he is confident he will find it. This presents a serious problem. It is not only theft over but fraud over. The fraudster would believe the gravity of the situation. But, because the advertisement was in a certain news publication, they figured the victims were worthless and ready to be abused. The fraudster was eventually arrested and caught and ordered to pay restitution. See the following case as an example. The problem is presenting the property as your own when it is not. This is not a game or a sport where you say the most aggressive and determined thief wins. It is a crime. Please read the following real case. Click here. EN FR Toggle Navigation Sep 15, 2015 Indemnification and Real Estate Fraud: The Use of ex turpi causa non oritur actio in Tran v Kerr Tran v Kerr, 2014 ABCA 350 (CanLII) by Peter Amrhein — The Court Default I CONCUR 0 I CONCUR Share on: Facebook Twitter Email Print Related opinionSee related content In Tran v Kerr, 2014 ABCA 350, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) clarified the circumstances under which a lawyer, involved in a fraudulent real estate transaction, is liable for the losses of the ultimate purchaser, a straw buyer. In this case, Kerr was a lawyer who represented the straw buyer, Tran, in addition to other parties to the fraud. While this case involved several issues, this post will focus on the ABCA’s application of the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (“ex turpi causa”). Tran v Kerr provides an example of an unusual discussion of the doctrine. Facts The transaction at issue followed the general model of real estate frauds (described in more detail at paragraph 2). Typically, fraudulent transactions are constructed so that the straw buyer purchases a house, on paper, at an inflated value. A mortgage on the house is created, the proceeds of which flow to the ultimate fraudster. Eventually, after nobody pays the mortgage, the straw buyer, to whom the mortgage technically belongs, is left in debt. The straw buyer is normally paid a fee for their involvement. In this case, Tran received $4,000 dollars for her participation in the transaction. Tran alleged that Kerr “was negligent in his representation of her, that he failed to advise her of the consequences of executing a high ratio mortgage, and that he acted in a conflict of interest” (para 8). Tran sought indemnification for the outstanding mortgage debt that was in her name. While Kerr admitted to representing Tran, he denied any knowledge of the transaction’s fraudulent nature. He argued that Tran’s claim was barred by the doctrine of ex turpi causa. Previous Judgment The trial judge decided in favour of Tran. “Overall, he viewed [Tran] as an innocent victim, observing on several occasions that she was ‘a Cambodian refugee who has a limited ability to read English’… ” (para 9). Kerr was ordered to indemnify Tran for her losses under the transaction. Decision The doctrine of ex turpi causa will bar a claim, in order to preserve the integrity of the legal system, when a litigant has acted immorally. In particular, the doctrine applies “where a damage award in a civil suit would allow a person to profit from illegal or wrongful conduct or would permit evasion or rebate of a penalty prescribed by the criminal law” (para 28; citing British Columbia v Zastowny, [2008] 1 SCR 27, para 20). If the doctrine applies, the loss remains where it originally fell. This does not mean that the burden will necessarily fall “on the shoulders of the person with the greatest moral culpability” (para 29). It simply means that a loss cannot be shifted beyond the party who first bears it. Thus, while a straw buyer will generally be less blamable than the true architects of a fraud, their wrongdoing is generally sufficient to prevent them from “compelling [the other fraudulent parties] to accept responsibility for, and contribute to the loss they have created” (ibid). However, Tran did not allege personal injury damages; instead, she was seeking indemnity. The limitations that applied in the context of personal injury did not apply in these circumstances. A higher threshold of wrongdoing had to be met to trigger the doctrine. There were, in essence, three possible results. All turned on the mindsets of Kerr and Tran: They were either intentionally fraudulent, or at least willfully blind . In this case, the doctrine would bar Tran’s claim. “[T]hey were negligent, in that the circumstances should have raised concern, and they did not respond to the circumstances as would a reasonable person[.]” In this situation, the losses would be apportioned between Kerr and Tran. They were completely innocent, and thus constituted mere victims. The trial judge placed Tran in this category (paras 32-33). While, in general, straw buyers are knowingly complacent in the fraud, there is also normally evidence of such knowledge. In this case, there was no indication that Tran actually participated in any misrepresentation of any sort, or even knew that a fraud was occurring. Instead, she testified that the ultimate fraudster assured her of the legality of the transaction, and that she did not sign any purchase offers. She acknowledged that she was aware that she was borrowing money from Royal Bank, and that she signed whatever documents were placed before her at Kerr’s office. While she did not understand them due to her English proficiency, she did not make an inquiry into their nature. The ABCA found Tran negligent, but not fraudulent. Thus, ex turpi causa could not apply. Based on this determination, and another that Kerr acted negligently, the ABCA apportioned the remaining cost of the mortgage between the parties. Conclusion This case exemplifies how “[t]he application of [ex turpi causa] in a particular case must depend on the public policy underling it, the proximity of the illegality to the claim, the gravity of the claimant’s conduct, and other relevant factors” (para 28). Different thresholds will apply depending on the suit at issue. In the case of indemnification for losses related to fraud, the doctrine will bar the claim if the party acted with (1) fraudulent intent, or (2) was willfully blind to the circumstances. This shows how, in Canada, the courts have developed a mechanism to prevent the derivation of wrongful benefits through the legal system. This is an important principle to remember. Please login to leave a comment. RELATED CASES AND POSTS AREAS OF LAW: Procedural fairness; Lawyer’s standard of care;... Tran v Kerr, 2014 ABCA 350 (CanLII) I CONCUR 0 I CONCUR Just the op circel part by OnPoint Legal Research Law Corp. Mar 17, 2015 Filter By Summary of Kulaga v First National Financial GP Corporation Kulaga v First National Financial GP Corporation, 2014 ABQB 400 (CanLII) I CONCUR 0 I CONCUR Jss by JSS Barristers Nov 26, 2014 Livent v Deloitte: Has the Fat Lady Finally Sung? Livent Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, 2016 ONCA 11 (CanLII) I CONCUR 1 I CONCUR Default by Patricia Joseph — The Court Jan 19, 2016 Summary of Toronto Dominion Bank v. Poon Toronto Dominion Bank v. Poon, 2012 ABQB 606 (CanLII) I CONCUR 0 I CONCUR Jss by JSS Barristers Mar 19, 2014 Summary of Royal Bank of Canada v. Levy Royal Bank of Canada v. Levy, 2011 ABQB 700 (CanLII) I CONCUR 0 I CONCUR Jss by JSS Barristers Mar 19, 2014 Summary of CIBC Mortgages Inc. v. Lucas CIBC Mortgages Inc. v. Lucas, 2012 ABQB 402 (CanLII) I CONCUR 0 I CONCUR Jss by JSS Barristers Mar 19, 2014 Straw purchasers beware: you could be on the hook forever Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation v. Evan Gray, 2013 ONSC 1986 (CanLII) I CONCUR 1 I CONCUR Small default by AdvocateDaily.com Aug 11, 2014 Kaddoura v Hanson: The Alberta Rules of Court Regarding Discl... Kaddoura v Hanson, 2015 ABCA 154 (CanLII) I CONCUR 1 I CONCUR Small default by Brett Code, Q.C. — ABlawg May 12, 2015 Shell Game Liability: Recovering Damages in Complex Fraud Cases DBDC Spadina Ltd. v. Walton, 2018 ONCA 60 (CanLII) I CONCUR 2 I CONCUR Ls colour cmyk logo 450x131px by Madison Robins — Lenczner Slaght Feb 27, 2018 About Terms of Use Contact Us Privacy Help
The success of every stratagem to extricate funds from the average, unassuming victim of the fraud is dependent on the understanding the victim may possess concerning the subject matter and also the victim's motivation. The success is really the fraudster's failure. You succeeded in anti-social behaviour in the commission of a criminal offence involving real property. You are now going to jail. You printed a document that looks like a municipality assessment with the Fraudster's name on it so you would cause people to believe you actually own the home. You say you paid the Mayor $70,000.00. Some recent scenarios involving property fraud involved property duly owned by one person where, for instance, such ownership was not properly communicated for some time to the owner but eventually ownership was communicated. In the mean time, the fraudster who may have little sympathy for the victims or the owners decided to offer the whole entire property for sale to another person. In fact, he offered the property to several other persons who actually wanted their money back. The fraudster said he does not know where the money is but he is confident he will find it.
This presents a serious problem. It is not only theft over but fraud over. The fraudster would believe the gravity of the situation. But, because the advertisement was in a certain news publication, they figured the victims were worthless and ready to be abused.
The fraudster was eventually arrested and caught and ordered to pay restitution. See the following case as an example. The problem is presenting the property as your own when it is not. This is not a game or a sport where you say the most aggressive and determined thief wins. It is a crime. Please read the following real case. Click here.
This presents a serious problem. It is not only theft over but fraud over. The fraudster would believe the gravity of the situation. But, because the advertisement was in a certain news publication, they figured the victims were worthless and ready to be abused.
The fraudster was eventually arrested and caught and ordered to pay restitution. See the following case as an example. The problem is presenting the property as your own when it is not. This is not a game or a sport where you say the most aggressive and determined thief wins. It is a crime. Please read the following real case. Click here.
Indemnification and Real Estate Fraud: The Use of ex turpi causa non oritur actio in Tran v Kerr
Tran v Kerr, 2014 ABCA 350 (CanLII)
by Peter Amrhein — The Court
In Tran v Kerr, 2014 ABCA 350, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) clarified the circumstances under which a lawyer, involved in a fraudulent real estate transaction, is liable for the losses of the ultimate purchaser, a straw buyer. In this case, Kerr was a lawyer who represented the straw buyer, Tran, in addition to other parties to the fraud.
While this case involved several issues, this post will focus on the ABCA’s application of the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (“ex turpi causa”). Tran v Kerr provides an example of an unusual discussion of the doctrine.
Facts
The transaction at issue followed the general model of real estate frauds (described in more detail at paragraph 2). Typically, fraudulent transactions are constructed so that the straw buyer purchases a house, on paper, at an inflated value. A mortgage on the house is created, the proceeds of which flow to the ultimate fraudster. Eventually, after nobody pays the mortgage, the straw buyer, to whom the mortgage technically belongs, is left in debt. The straw buyer is normally paid a fee for their involvement. In this case, Tran received $4,000 dollars for her participation in the transaction.
Tran alleged that Kerr “was negligent in his representation of her, that he failed to advise her of the consequences of executing a high ratio mortgage, and that he acted in a conflict of interest” (para 8). Tran sought indemnification for the outstanding mortgage debt that was in her name. While Kerr admitted to representing Tran, he denied any knowledge of the transaction’s fraudulent nature. He argued that Tran’s claim was barred by the doctrine of ex turpi causa.
Previous Judgment
The trial judge decided in favour of Tran. “Overall, he viewed [Tran] as an innocent victim, observing on several occasions that she was ‘a Cambodian refugee who has a limited ability to read English’… ” (para 9). Kerr was ordered to indemnify Tran for her losses under the transaction.
Decision
The doctrine of ex turpi causa will bar a claim, in order to preserve the integrity of the legal system, when a litigant has acted immorally. In particular, the doctrine applies “where a damage award in a civil suit would allow a person to profit from illegal or wrongful conduct or would permit evasion or rebate of a penalty prescribed by the criminal law” (para 28; citing British Columbia v Zastowny, [2008] 1 SCR 27, para 20). If the doctrine applies, the loss remains where it originally fell. This does not mean that the burden will necessarily fall “on the shoulders of the person with the greatest moral culpability” (para 29). It simply means that a loss cannot be shifted beyond the party who first bears it. Thus, while a straw buyer will generally be less blamable than the true architects of a fraud, their wrongdoing is generally sufficient to prevent them from “compelling [the other fraudulent parties] to accept responsibility for, and contribute to the loss they have created” (ibid).
However, Tran did not allege personal injury damages; instead, she was seeking indemnity. The limitations that applied in the context of personal injury did not apply in these circumstances. A higher threshold of wrongdoing had to be met to trigger the doctrine.
There were, in essence, three possible results. All turned on the mindsets of Kerr and Tran:
- They were either intentionally fraudulent, or at least willfully blind . In this case, the doctrine would bar Tran’s claim.
- “[T]hey were negligent, in that the circumstances should have raised concern, and they did not respond to the circumstances as would a reasonable person[.]” In this situation, the losses would be apportioned between Kerr and Tran.
- They were completely innocent, and thus constituted mere victims. The trial judge placed Tran in this category (paras 32-33).
While, in general, straw buyers are knowingly complacent in the fraud, there is also normally evidence of such knowledge. In this case, there was no indication that Tran actually participated in any misrepresentation of any sort, or even knew that a fraud was occurring. Instead, she testified that the ultimate fraudster assured her of the legality of the transaction, and that she did not sign any purchase offers. She acknowledged that she was aware that she was borrowing money from Royal Bank, and that she signed whatever documents were placed before her at Kerr’s office. While she did not understand them due to her English proficiency, she did not make an inquiry into their nature.
The ABCA found Tran negligent, but not fraudulent. Thus, ex turpi causa could not apply. Based on this determination, and another that Kerr acted negligently, the ABCA apportioned the remaining cost of the mortgage between the parties.
Conclusion
This case exemplifies how “[t]he application of [ex turpi causa] in a particular case must depend on the public policy underling it, the proximity of the illegality to the claim, the gravity of the claimant’s conduct, and other relevant factors” (para 28). Different thresholds will apply depending on the suit at issue. In the case of indemnification for losses related to fraud, the doctrine will bar the claim if the party acted with (1) fraudulent intent, or (2) was willfully blind to the circumstances.
This shows how, in Canada, the courts have developed a mechanism to prevent the derivation of wrongful benefits through the legal system. This is an important principle to remember.
Please login to leave a comment.
