Jacqueline King

The plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion against the defendants for fraud and conversion.

The defendant office manager misappropriated over $1.1 million from the plaintiff's personal bank accounts through e-transfers, cheques, and credit card payments.

The defendant claimed the plaintiff authorized all transactions.

The court found the defendant's evidence entirely lacking in credibility and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs.

The court awarded compensatory damages for fraud and conversion, punitive damages, and ordered a reference to determine the defendant's husband's liability for knowing receipt of stolen funds.

The Plaintiff sought an order for Land Genesis Development Corp. to pay $394,212 in partial satisfaction of a prior fraud judgment against the Defendants, including Genesis (LA) Corp. The Defendants, Eduardo and Patricia Garcia, opposed, asserting the funds were beneficially owned by non-resident investors.

Land Genesis did not oppose but required a court order.

The court found the record insufficient and conflicting regarding beneficial ownership claims and the proper filing of evidence.

Consequently, the motion was adjourned to allow all parties to properly file materials and for Land Genesis to respond to new evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete and properly presented record for a determination.

The plaintiff, a Paraguayan pension fund, brought a motion seeking a declaration of contempt against the defendants for failing to comply with a previous fraud judgment and non-dissipation order, and various ancillary orders compelling accounting, asset transfers, and examinations in aid of execution.

The court declined to find the defendants in contempt due to the high evidentiary threshold but granted most of the other relief sought, ordering the defendants to provide a full accounting of defrauded funds, sell a property in Guatemala and transfer the proceeds, provide tax returns, cease defamatory statements, pay outstanding costs, and re-attend examinations.

The request to examine the defendants' daughter was denied without prejudice.

The appellant, Antonio Duscio, appealed a 16-month imprisonment sentence for contempt of court, which was imposed shortly after a previous 12-month contempt sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's analysis of relevant legal principles or extensive factual findings.

The court noted that the appellant could secure early release by purging his contempt or providing a complete accounting of dissipated funds and assets.

The appeal was dismissed.

Antonio Duscio, a defendant found civilly liable for defrauding a Paraguayan pension fund and serving his second sentence for civil contempt, sought release from custody pending an appeal of his sentence.

The motion judge, Sossin J.A., addressed the procedural question of whether the applicable standard for release was a stay of a civil order or bail pending appeal.

The court determined that a stay of the civil order, governed by the three-part RJR-MacDonald test, was the proper procedural route for release in civil contempt matters.

While leave to appeal the sentence was granted due to a serious issue regarding the proportionality of the sentence and its preclusion of parole eligibility in light of R. v. Bissonnette, the motion for release pending appeal was dismissed.

The court found that the balance of convenience did not favour granting a stay, emphasizing Duscio's history of flagrant and ongoing disregard for court orders and the unique purpose of civil contempt sentences to incentivize compliance.

This is an appeal from a contempt finding against the appellant for violating a non-dissipation and disclosure order.

The appellant was found to have failed to disclose beneficial interests in life insurance policies, concealed the whereabouts of a Ferrari, and disbursed funds contrary to the order.

The appellant argued errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact, including issues with pleading, the existence of assets, the drawing of inferences from circumstantial evidence, and the admissibility of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments, upholding the motion judge's findings, and affirming the application of the necessity and reliability test for hearsay and the principles regarding circumstantial evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant in civil contempt for violating a non-dissipation and disclosure order.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally breached the clear and unequivocal order by failing to disclose his ownership of certain life insurance policies, dissipating the proceeds of those policies by directing a third party to disburse funds, and failing to disclose the whereabouts of a Ferrari.

The court dismissed the defendant's evidentiary objections, admitting a third-party bank statement and an affidavit the defendant had sworn in a foreign proceeding.

The defendant was found in contempt.

Appellants sought an order permitting access to frozen funds to pay legal fees for their appeal from a trial judgment finding fraudulent conduct and ordering payment of over $20 million to the respondent.

The trial judge had imposed a broad non-dissipation order restraining the appellants from dealing with any assets.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that funds used for legal fees would be unavailable to satisfy the judgment.

The Court of Appeal granted partial relief, permitting access to $100,000 from the proceeds of a home sale to fund reasonable legal fees for the appeal, finding that the appellants had a right to meaningful participation in their appeal and that the respondent's claim as a judgment creditor was subordinate to the appellants' need to fund their legal representation.