Frank Spizzirri

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for misappropriation of funds related to a syndicated construction loan.

The court granted summary judgment against the corporate defendants and one individual defendant, finding no genuine issue for trial and declaring the damages resulted from fraud.

However, the court dismissed the motion against two other individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of their claim against them more than two years before they were added to the action, meaning the limitation period had expired.

The Trustee in bankruptcy applied under s. 96(1)(b)(ii) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for a declaration that the bankrupt's 2018 transfer of his interest in a Florida property to his wife was a transfer at undervalue and void.

The court found that the transfer met the preconditions for a transfer at undervalue, including being to a non-arm's length party within five years of bankruptcy, and that the bankrupt intended to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors, as evidenced by "badges of fraud" such as existing lawsuits and inadequate consideration.

The court declared the transfer of the bankrupt's half interest in the property void and ordered the wife to pay half of the net proceeds from her subsequent sale of the property to the Trustee.

The respondents, investors in Hetti Group Inc., obtained summary judgment against Hetti Group and its controlling minds for misappropriated loan funds, with the corporate veil pierced and the claim found not statute-barred.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: the motion judge erred in finding the Sugi Defendants were agents for the Hetti Group for the purpose of a key email, the acknowledgment of debt was insufficient for limitation purposes as no amount was specified, and the motion judge erred in piercing the corporate veil.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings on agency, the interpretation of the Limitations Act regarding debt acknowledgment (that a specific amount is not required), and the appropriateness of piercing the corporate veil due to substantial evidence of fund misappropriation.

The moving party, AutoLoans, sought a declaration of ownership over four vehicles, asserting a purchase agreement with Clonsilla Auto Sales and Leasing.

The court-appointed Receiver, Deloitte Restructuring Inc., opposed, arguing the transaction was a financing arrangement and, alternatively, a preferential transfer under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court found that the executed Fixed Rate Installment Notes (FRINs) constituted a binding financing transaction that was not legally displaced by subsequent backdated purchase documents.

Consequently, the vehicles remained property of the debtors, and AutoLoans' motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, retired individuals, loaned $50,000 each to Hetti Group Inc. for residential renovation projects.

The Hetti Group, controlled by Lance Hettiarachchi and Gamini Roy De Silva, allegedly misappropriated funds.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for repayment of the loans plus interest.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that Hetti Group was a sham corporation used by Lance and Roy for improper conduct, thus piercing the corporate veil.

The court also found that the action was not statute-barred due to acknowledgements of debt by the defendants' agents, extending the limitation period.

The applicants brought an application under the oppression remedy provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court heard three motions: the applicants' motion to convert the application into an action, the applicants' motion for contempt against the respondents, and the respondents' motion to vary a previous order regarding monthly payments and benefits.

The court granted the motion to convert the application into an action due to numerous material facts in dispute.

The contempt motion was dismissed, as the respondents had made good faith efforts regarding disclosure, and contempt is not available for orders for the payment of money.

The respondents' motion was partially granted to terminate the obligation to provide a benefits plan, but the monthly payment obligation remained.

The plaintiffs and defendants brought cross-motions for relief under the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The dispute arose after the majority shareholders terminated the defendant from his role as Director of Operations and removed him as a director.

The court found that the defendant had acted oppressively by transferring over $700,000 of corporate funds to a company he solely controlled to protect his personal interests.

Applying the clean hands doctrine, the court denied the defendant's request for an oppression remedy and the appointment of an inspector, but granted the plaintiffs' motion to correct the shareholder register and restore their authority over the corporate bank accounts.