Jeffrey David Buchan

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.

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 defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs, a lawyer and his law firm, failed to file responding evidence, a factum, or appear at the hearing.

The court found the claim deficient, confusing, and lacking material facts for the pleaded torts.

The motion was granted, the statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants on a substantial indemnity basis due to the frivolous and vexatious nature of the pleading and the plaintiffs' non-compliance with court orders.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) appealed a motion judge's order requiring it to pay $156,461.99 in costs following an unsuccessful interlocutory injunction motion brought by students against Seneca College's COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Court of Appeal found the costs order fundamentally flawed because the motion judge failed to determine if the litigation was public interest litigation and did not apply the correct legal tests for awarding costs against a non-party (the "person of straw" test or abuse of process).

The Court clarified that fundraising or promoting a case on a website does not constitute abuse of process.

The Court also stated that JCCF's refusal to disclose whether it was indemnifying the students was a relevant consideration for costs.

The appeal was allowed, the costs order set aside, and the matter remitted to the motion judge for a fresh determination.