The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, a former employee and son-in-law, who defrauded the plaintiffs' accounting firm of $342,170.22 by diverting client payments to a sham bank account.
The defendant sought to amend his statement of defence to plead that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, arguing the plaintiffs ought to have discovered the fraud earlier.
The court granted the amendment but found no evidence to support the limitation defence.
Summary judgment was granted for the full amount of the diverted funds, plus $50,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's deceitful and high-handed conduct.
A Mareva injunction was also extended to assist with enforcement.
