GUILTY Canada - Marie-France Comeau, 37, & Jessica Lloyd, 27, slain, Ont, 2009 & 2010 - #3

[Hazel]

Just a couple of observations on the RW email:

Marie France Comeau was found deceased around noon Nov 25, but RW received an email !! notifying him at 12:13 am Nov 26.

I notice in his Nov 26 response (looks like 6:41 am), at the bottom it says "sent from my wireless handheld device".

Yes, that caught my eye! Hope that RW carried it with him at all times, and that it has a built-in GPS, and that LE got hold of that wireless hand-held device, and are able to do that triangulation thing they do. I'm sure you are thinking of Jan.18/19

 

[Macright]

From the CBC site..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/20100510180452393.pdf

 

[antiquegirl]

Perhaps this is why she was visiting the jail so frequently a few weeks back, probably getting a quick divorice and changing ownerships of property etc. Can civil suits still go after her if she has all of this done????

There is already a civil suit filed with her name on it.

The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, is also suing Williams's wife, Mary-Elizabeth Harriman, claiming Williams fraudulently transferred an Ottawa property to his wife in an effort to defeat Jane Doe's claim.

http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100510/100510_williams/20100510/?hub=CP24Home

I'm not sure why the transfer would be considered "fraudulent". If he is still the legal owner of the property, doesn't he have the legal right to transfer the ownership to his wife (or anyone else, for that matter) as he wishes?

According to this article, "the real estate transaction took place on March 26", but we're not told when the suit was filed. But even if MW was aware of the suit when the transfer took place, I don't see why this would be illegal. We need the advice of an expert here.

 

[antiquegirl]

From the CBC site..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/20100510180452393.pdf

There we go! (Thanks, Macright.) So, the property transfer took place a month and a half before the civil suit was filed. How could the transfer possibly be interpreted as "fraudulent"?

I agree with FF that MEH is also a victim here and that normally she is legally entitled to half of RW's assets if they divorced. Can her assets now be legally frozen to prevent her from selling anything?

IMO, if this couple had already filed for divorce, the media would have gotten wind of it the same way they obtained this other information and copies of the documents.

 

[antiquegirl]

From the CBC site..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/20100510180452393.pdf

Here is a copy of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act mentioned in the civil suit against RW and MEH.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-f29/latest/rso-1990-c-f29.html

2. Every conveyance of real property or personal property and every bond, suit, judgment and execution heretofore or hereafter made with intent to defeat, hinder, delay or defraud creditors or others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties or forfeitures are void as against such persons and their assigns. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.29, s. 2.

So, I interpret this as Jane Doe's attorney will have to prove that the couple were aware of the impending civil suit (dated May 10, 2010) and intentionally made the transfer to defeat it.

3. Section 2 does not apply to an estate or interest in real property or personal property conveyed upon good consideration and in good faith to a person not having at the time of the conveyance to the person notice or knowledge of the intent set forth in that section. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.29, s. 3.

I hope I'm understanding this properly.

 

[Macright]

I think in this case Jane Doe will have the support of the public behind her and with the charges against Williams, the support of the courts. I am sure a settlement will be reached in favour of Jane Doe.

 

[Sillybilly]

There is already a civil suit filed with her name on it.

The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, is also suing Williams's wife, Mary-Elizabeth Harriman, claiming Williams fraudulently transferred an Ottawa property to his wife in an effort to defeat Jane Doe's claim.

http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100510/100510_williams/20100510/?hub=CP24Home

I'm not sure why the transfer would be considered "fraudulent". If he is still the legal owner of the property, doesn't he have the legal right to transfer the ownership to his wife (or anyone else, for that matter) as he wishes?

According to this article, "the real estate transaction took place on March 26", but we're not told when the suit was filed. But even if MW was aware of the suit when the transfer took place, I don't see why this would be illegal. We need the advice of an expert here.

Um, no expert, but have some input Can't think of all the proper legal jargon, but ... any transfer of assets within one year prior to an action can be deemed to have been transferred to avoid legal claim or remedy and can be reversed by a judge.

Oh, just found the BC "Fraudulent Conveyance Act". Will try to find Ontario's:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96163_01

 

[antiquegirl]

I think in this case Jane Doe will have the support of the public behind her and with the charges against Williams, the support of the courts. I am sure a settlement will be reached in favour of Jane Doe.

I agree and believe she deserves a generous settlement. Just trying to understand the legalities involved.

 

[Sillybilly]

Looks like this is the Ontario Fraudulent Conveyance Act:

http://canlii.com/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-f29/latest/rso-1990-c-f29.html

As the transfer to MEH occurred prior to the Statement of Claim issued by Jane Doe, they will probably argue that it was done in good faith without any knowledge of the subsequent claim by Jane Doe. IMO though, MEH would have to have known that the potential for a civil action by any of the victims or victims' families was forthcoming simply based on the nature of the charges against RW.

ETA: I don't see anything in the current legislation regarding a specific timeframe (i.e. 1 year prior), so maybe that doesn't apply anymore.

 

[antiquegirl]

Looks like this is the Ontario Fraudulent Conveyance Act:

http://canlii.com/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-f29/latest/rso-1990-c-f29.html

As the transfer to MEH occurred prior to the Statement of Claim issued by Jane Doe, they will probably argue that it was done in good faith without any knowledge of the subsequent claim by Jane Doe. IMO though, MEH would have to have known that the potential for a civil action by any of the victims or victims' families was forthcoming simply based on the nature of the charges against RW.

ETA: I don't see anything in the current legislation regarding a specific timeframe (i.e. 1 year prior), so maybe that doesn't apply anymore.

I beat you to it, SB.

Since MEH is already named as one of the defendants in the civil suit, I think the date of the transfer to her shouldn't be an issue. She is already being sued. The problem would arise if she has already sold, or will sell, some of these assets. This is why I wondered if her assets could be garnisheed to prevent her selling them to a third party.

I'm no expert either, so this is just conjecture.

 

[Hazel]

Here is a copy of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act mentioned in the civil suit against RW and MEH.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-f29/latest/rso-1990-c-f29.html

2. Every conveyance of real property or personal property and every bond, suit, judgment and execution heretofore or hereafter made with intent to defeat, hinder, delay or defraud creditors or others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties or forfeitures are void as against such persons and their assigns. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.29, s. 2.

So, I interpret this as Jane Doe's attorney will have to prove that the couple were aware of the impending civil suit (dated May 10, 2010) and intentionally made the transfer to defeat it.

3. Section 2 does not apply to an estate or interest in real property or personal property conveyed upon good consideration and in good faith to a person not having at the time of the conveyance to the person notice or knowledge of the intent set forth in that section. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.29, s. 3.

I hope I'm understanding this properly.

Or maybe the other way around? The defendants have to prove they had no idea it never occurred to them, nor the lawyer they retained ever adviced them, that one of the many victims could possibly, in a million years think of suing RW.

By transfering all the property to her name, they are also protecting RW's half ... hmmm, let me think, who could they be trying to protect the property/assets from? Let me guess, could it be from his victims? Just a wild guess :innocent:

 

[Hazel]

Question for our Legal experts

What will happen if now in turn MEH sells the property (or properties, since I'm thinking this could also apply to all properties/assets = cars, cottage, stocks, bonds, etc.)

I beat you to it, SB.

Since MEH is already named as one of the defendants in the civil suit, I think the date of the transfer to her shouldn't be an issue. She is already being sued. The problem would arise if she has already sold, or will sell, some of these assets. This is why I wondered if her assets could be garnisheed to prevent her selling them to a third party.

I'm no expert either, so this is just conjecture.

he he, lol, I had already asked that question to our legal experts.

MEH could subsequently buy the property back for Can. $1.00 (well, not exactly, but you get my point) There are so many legal tricks, and their lawyer is a good one!

 

[Sillybilly]

Yes, that caught my eye! Hope that RW carried it with him at all times, and that it has a built-in GPS, and that LE got hold of that wireless hand-held device, and are able to do that triangulation thing they do. I'm sure you are thinking of Jan.18/19

Me thinking of Jan 18/19? Naw

 

[Sillybilly]

I beat you to it, SB.

I just studied it longer

 

[Sillybilly]

By transfering all the property to her name, they are also protecting RW's half ... hmmm, let me think, who could they be trying to protect the property/assets from? Let me guess, could it be from his victims? Just a wild guess :innocent:

<snip>

To our knowledge, there are no divorce proceedings in the works between RW and MEH, so what OTHER reason would exist for any transfer of assets to take place at this time? I can't think of any, other than to avoid potential legal claims by the victims.

 

[margaret_diane]

There is already a civil suit filed with her name on it.

The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, is also suing Williams's wife, Mary-Elizabeth Harriman, claiming Williams fraudulently transferred an Ottawa property to his wife in an effort to defeat Jane Doe's claim.

http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100510/100510_williams/20100510/?hub=CP24Home

I'm not sure why the transfer would be considered "fraudulent". If he is still the legal owner of the property, doesn't he have the legal right to transfer the ownership to his wife (or anyone else, for that matter) as he wishes?

According to this article, "the real estate transaction took place on March 26", but we're not told when the suit was filed. But even if MW was aware of the suit when the transfer took place, I don't see why this would be illegal. We need the advice of an expert here.

Bold and red above by me for clarity:
The suit was filed on May 6, 2010.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/20100510180452393.pdf
Thats when its date stamped for...

 

[margaret_diane]

There we go! (Thanks, Macright.) So, the property transfer took place a month and a half before the civil suit was filed. How could the transfer possibly be interpreted as "fraudulent"?

I agree with FF that MEH is also a victim here and that normally she is legally entitled to half of RW's assets if they divorced. Can her assets now be legally frozen to prevent her from selling anything?

IMO, if this couple had already filed for divorce, the media would have gotten wind of it the same way they obtained this other information and copies of the documents.

The transfer may well appear fraudulent in that it took place AFTER he was charged with the serious crimes. If it had happened BEFORE the arrests, then it probably couldn't be touched. However, the claim seems to hold that it is fraud because the intention of the transfer is to prevent victims from gaining financial support / benefit from such assets. It seems a DELIBERATE attempt to thwart any such civil suits (even those which had not yet been launched) from proceeding. One has to wonder if the transfer was made on the advice of a lawyer in anticipation of civil suits coming forward? I'll search canlii later for similar such cases, and see if there are any, and therefore any precedent.

 

[margaret_diane]

There we go! (Thanks, Macright.) So, the property transfer took place a month and a half before the civil suit was filed. How could the transfer possibly be interpreted as "fraudulent"?

I agree with FF that MEH is also a victim here and that normally she is legally entitled to half of RW's assets if they divorced. Can her assets now be legally frozen to prevent her from selling anything?

IMO, if this couple had already filed for divorce, the media would have gotten wind of it the same way they obtained this other information and copies of the documents.

Wondering if a lawyer is encouraging them to stay married? Remember the whole law of privileged information. She cannot be expected to testify against her husband if they are still married. This brings up an interesting point -- if she stays married to him, I will wonder whether or not she had ANY knowledge even a hint of what her husband was up to. Staying married, and remaining off limits to certain questions is a good way to avoid culpability -- you would be less likely to trip up, and implicate yourself in any wrongdoing. I'm not accusing her. Just sayin.

 

[antiquegirl]

<snip>

To our knowledge, there are no divorce proceedings in the works between RW and MEH, so what OTHER reason would exist for any transfer of assets to take place at this time? I can't think of any, other than to avoid potential legal claims by the victims.

(BBM)

Again, I don't know much about the law, but could another reason be that they are pretty confident that RW is going to be spending at least the next 25 years in prison? That MEH would probably never want to live in either that house or cottage again and would want to sell both and with sole ownership simplifying the sales? Could MEH be concerned that RW might attempt suicide again and succeed, further tying up the distribution of assets?

Just guessing here how their lawyer may defend this suit.

JMO

 

[antiquegirl]

Or maybe the other way around? The defendants have to prove they had no idea it never occurred to them, nor the lawyer they retained ever adviced them, that one of the many victims could possibly, in a million years think of suing RW.

By transfering all the property to her name, they are also protecting RW's half ... hmmm, let me think, who could they be trying to protect the property/assets from? Let me guess, could it be from his victims? Just a wild guess :innocent:

(BBM)

The burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is always on the prosecution.

... the presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence (generally beyond a reasonable doubt) and to disprove all the defences

The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.

However, there is this strategy:

To prove something by "clear and convincing evidence", the party with the burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This is a lesser requirement than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", which requires that the trier of fact be close to certain of the truth of the matter asserted, but a stricter requirement than proof by "preponderance of the evidence," which merely requires that the matter asserted seem more likely true than not.

If the prosecution can present sufficient evidence to the courts, the onus shifts to the defence to disprove the charges.

An "evidentiary burden" or "burden of leading evidence" is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie evidence of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof