Two appellants — the former office manager and her husband — appealed a summary judgment that found the office manager liable for fraud and conversion arising from the misappropriation of over $1.1 million from her employer's personal accounts, and purported to find the husband liable for knowing receipt with quantum to be determined by reference.
The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment and punitive damages against the office manager but set aside the punitive damages award in favour of the corporate respondent on the basis that it lacked a rational connection to the purposes of retribution, deterrence, and denunciation.
As against the husband, the court found that the knowing assistance claim should have been dismissed for want of evidence of participation.
The court further held that the knowing receipt claim could not be resolved by reference because actual receipt of trust property was a precondition to liability; as the evidence before the motion judge was insufficient to satisfy the strict tracing requirement, the claim was directed to trial.
