Edward G. Spong

The plaintiff sought a declaration that a judgment previously entered against the individual defendant, Chris Mace, survived bankruptcy pursuant to s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the debt arose from fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation while the defendant acted in a fiduciary capacity.

The jurisprudence requires an element of wrongdoing, dishonesty, or improper conduct for the exception to apply.

The default judgment obtained for payment of money only, and the general pleadings, were insufficient to establish the necessary misconduct.

The defendant's affidavit, which the plaintiff did not cross-examine, described an unfortunate financial situation rather than fraud.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed, and no costs were awarded, as it would be unfair to burden the plaintiff with costs given the 'fresh start' policy of the BIA.

The respondents operated a fitness club business through a corporate entity and agreed to sell the business to the appellants through an Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 30, 2015.

The agreement required the purchaser to assume approximately $58,000 in equipment and leasehold improvement loans.

After taking possession and operating the business, the appellants refused to sign the required promissory note, stopped payment on a cheque, and immediately defaulted on lease obligations, triggering the respondents' personal liability.

The motion judge found the corporate purchaser liable for breach of contract and pierced the corporate veil to hold the individual appellants personally liable for fraudulent conduct.

The appellants appealed on three grounds, all of which were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a supplemental motion for summary judgment to hold the individual defendants personally liable for the unpaid purchase price of a fitness club business.

The court found that the individual defendants, as the controlling minds of the corporate defendant, used the corporation to engage in improper and dishonest conduct by converting the plaintiffs' assets without payment.

Applying the principles of good faith dealing and piercing the corporate veil, the court granted summary judgment against the individual defendants for $58,697.06.

The plaintiffs sold their fitness club franchise to the corporate defendant via an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) without legal representation.

The corporate defendant took possession but failed to pay the purchase price, which involved assuming two small business loans, and failed to pay rent, causing the plaintiffs to default on their lease and incur a claw-back of deferred rent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment for the amounts owed and sought to pierce the corporate veil to hold the personal defendants liable.

The court granted summary judgment against the corporate defendant for the loan amounts and the foreseeable deferred rent claw-back, totaling $85,637.97.

However, the court ordered a mini-trial to determine liability for three months of rent and dismissed the claims against the personal defendants because the tort of conversion and breach of good faith were not pleaded, though leave to amend was granted.

The accused was convicted at trial of tax evasion for failing to file income tax returns for four consecutive tax years (2007-2010) while receiving over $2 million in salary, bonuses, and dividends from his company.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of up to two years plus a fine of 100% of taxes evaded.

The defence sought a conditional sentence with a fine of 50-100% of taxes evaded.

The court imposed a 20-month custodial sentence and a fine of 100% of the taxes evaded ($552,976), finding that a conditional sentence would not provide sufficient deterrence given the sophistication of the offender, the scale of the evasion, and the ease with which such offences can be committed.

The accused was charged with wilfully evading or attempting to evade payment of $552,976 in Federal taxes by failing to file income tax returns for the taxation years 2007-2010 contrary to s.239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act.

The accused admitted the failure to file but claimed he always intended to pay taxes in the future.

The Crown argued the accused deliberately chose not to file to avoid immediate tax payment.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to evade taxes.

The court found the accused was not a credible witness and that his claim of future intent to pay did not provide a defence to tax evasion.

The applicant, Walter Burnat, sought an interim order for directions regarding the personal care and living arrangements of his 80-year-old mother, Olga Burnat, who suffers from moderate to severe dementia and requires 24-hour supervision.

Walter proposed moving Olga to a retirement residence in Richmond Hill, while the respondent, Mary Bosworth, Olga's daughter, advocated for Olga to remain in her Whitby home with a proposed home care plan.

The court, exercising its authority under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, found Walter's proposal offered greater certainty of care and granted the interim order for Olga to reside at the retirement residence until a suitable local facility becomes available.