In Primmum Insurance Co. v. Suleiman Bani Ahmad et al., 2026 ONSC 4810, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted an award of punitive damages in the sum of $150,000 and costs on a substantial indemnity basis in relation to a fraudulent conveyance of property.

A default judgment of $238,750 was issued against Mr. Bani Ahmad in 2006, in favour of Primmum. By 2015 he had not satisfied the judgment. Primmum brought a motion in March of 2015 seeking a writ of seizure and sale of the Defendants’ home. On the date of the motion, Mr. Bani Ahmad transferred his interest in the home to Ms. Bani Ahmad. The writ was obtained days later but could not be enforced due to the conveyance. Primmum issued a Statement of Claim on October 13, 2015, alleging that the conveyance was fraudulent.

The Defendants thereafter engaged in behaviour that skirted the Rules of Civil Procedure and sought to prevent the action from moving forward. They failed to attend examinations for discovery in 2016. Primmum then moved to strike their Statement of Defence. The Defendants were eventually examined in 2017 but had failed to satisfy their undertakings given. Primmum moved again in 2020 to strike their Statement of Defence.

Trial Outcome

At trial, the Court found the transfer to be fraudulent and that it had been devised to avoid the 2015 writ of seizure and sale. The Court based their findings on the evidence produced by Primmum, which included the Defendants’ banking, tax and insurance records; as well as reports and surveillance from private investigators.

The Court found that the Defendants, who admitted little to no evidence outside of their, and their witnesses’, viva voce testimony, were neither credible nor reliable, and that their evidence was either inconsistent, weak, or inadmissible.

Punitive Damages Warranted

The Court found that the collective conduct of the Defendants warranted an award of punitive damages. Specifically, the Court noted that they had been dishonest and obstructive throughout the proceedings; that they behaved improperly at examinations for discovery; that they persuaded or permitted their family members to give testimony that was not credible and/or reliable; and that it was likely that the Defendants had manufactured a separation agreement to justify the conveyance. The Court decided that an award of $150,000 in punitive damages was warranted, keeping in mind that the purpose of such an award is to denounce improper conduct.

Costs Award

The Court awarded Primmum costs of $329,910.76 on a substantial indemnity basis, declining to award full indemnity based only on its finding that some individual docket entries or disbursements could be open to debate. In its decision on costs, the Court stated that the conduct of the Defendants had “substantially increased the complexity, duration, and expense of the proceedings.”

Interestingly, while Primmum had served a number of offers to settle, including Rule 49 offers, the Court preferred to base their costs award on the Defendants’ “reprehensible” conduct, including Mr. Bani Ahmad’s disregard of the initial 2006 judgment and his admissions at trial that he did not take the judgment seriously. The Court was satisfied that the Defendants’ issues with credibility, inconsistency, and deceitfulness required an award of costs beyond the typical partial indemnity award.

Conclusion

This case serves to highlight the consequences that parties to an action risk if they engage in deceitful, inconsistent, and obstructive conduct during litigation. The Court is alive to the fact that such conduct undermines the integrity of the administration of justice and needlessly complicates matters before the Court.