This is an appeal from a summary judgment motion that found the appellants liable for knowing assistance and knowing receipt in a fraudulent scheme.
The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by drawing unwarranted inferences of liability based largely on the mere rejection of the appellants' evidence, rather than requiring positive proof.
The motion judge also made speculative and stereotypical findings regarding the appellants' credibility and financial arrangements.
The Court held that the rejection of a witness's evidence does not amount to positive proof of the opposite proposition.
The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the case remitted to the Superior Court for trial.
