Christopher Carl Selby

The plaintiffs (Securitas) brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), and a Norwich Order against the defendants, alleging fraud related to sham alarm system accounts.

The court dismissed the Mareva injunction against all defendants and the CPL against the Eagle Defendants, finding that Securitas had not established a strong prima facie case of fraud against the Eagle Defendants, nor sufficient evidence of assets or dissipation risk for the other defendants (Rahman and Philip).

However, the court granted a Norwich Order against Rahman and Philip for financial disclosure and, by consent, ordered the Eagle Defendants to provide similar financial information.

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.

The plaintiffs, Quantum Dealer Financial Corporation and NextGear Capital Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment against the Guillen Defendants (Claudia Guillen Aracely, Jasmin Ivonne Guillen, 2564523 Ontario Inc., and Garnette C. Williams) and sought default judgment against Toronto Fine Cars and Leasing Inc. and Diego Sebastian Diaz.

The plaintiffs alleged that Diego Diaz, controlling shareholder of Toronto Fine Cars, fraudulently dissipated assets from the dealership by selling financed vehicles and failing to remit proceeds.

They further alleged that the Guillen Defendants assisted in and knowingly received these fraudulently obtained funds, using a newspaper business (Compra Y Venta, operated by 256 Corp.) as a money laundering vehicle.

The court found the Guillen Defendants' explanations for financial transactions and marital breakdown narrative to be incredible and inconsistent, exhibiting "badges of fraud." The court granted default judgment against Diego Diaz and Toronto Fine Cars and summary judgment against the Guillen Defendants, finding them jointly and severally liable for the unremitted proceeds, NSF charges, contractual interest, and punitive damages, based on the doctrines of knowing assistance and knowing receipt.

This is an appeal from a trial judge's decision to discharge a mortgage.

The appellant claimed a loan was secured by a mortgage on the respondent's home, which was later re-loaned but remained secured.

The trial judge, unable to determine witness credibility, relied on documentary evidence to find the mortgage had been repaid and effectively redeemed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the issue of redemption was properly before the court via counterclaim, that the appellant waived technical compliance by admitting repayment, and that the trial judge was entitled to rely on documentary evidence given credibility issues.

The applicant, a minority shareholder and employee, alleged constructive dismissal due to reduced compensation (loss of personal expense reimbursement via corporate cards) and corporate oppression under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, seeking payment for lost benefits and an order for Metcom to purchase his shares.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that the card privileges were an informal shareholder arrangement personal to the previous majority shareholder and the applicant, not an employee compensation entitlement, and were subject to the corporation's financial capacity.

Furthermore, the applicant's expectation for share repurchase lacked a legal basis, as there was no shareholders' agreement or other binding arrangement.

An employee appealed a judgment regarding vesting of stock options under an employment contract.

The application judge found that a sale of substantially all of the company's assets to Lexmark constituted a triggering event causing the employee's unvested options to vest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on all grounds, finding that the Option Plan was binding, the sale constituted a triggering event, the employee properly exercised the options, the employee reasonably did not mitigate by seeking employment with Lexmark, and the requirement to purchase options through a holding company was appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The landlord, 7Marli Limited, sought costs following a partial summary judgment for unpaid rent against its tenant, Pet Valu Canada Inc. The landlord claimed $8,742.91, including a portion for pleadings, productions, and discoveries.

The tenant argued the claim was excessive and proposed $4,500, limited to the motion's costs.

The court agreed with the tenant, awarding $4,500, all inclusive, for the motion only, deferring other costs to the main cause.

The landlord, 7Marli Limited, brought a motion for partial summary judgment against its commercial tenant, Pet Valu Canada Inc., for unpaid rent after the tenant vacated the premises.

The tenant resisted, arguing that partial summary judgment was an inefficient use of judicial resources and inconsistent with Supreme Court of Canada guidance on summary judgment.

The court granted the partial summary judgment, affirming the landlord's right to sue for rent arrears while keeping the lease alive, without a duty to mitigate, and distinguishing the case from those where partial summary judgment is inappropriate.