3 total
The court found the defendant liable for breach of fiduciary duty and civil fraud for misappropriating partnership funds.
The plaintiff, Giang Long Nguyen, invested $100,000 in a trucking business venture with the defendants, Abdelraheem Adas and Krystalynn Kaur Manu (common-law spouses).
The defendants misrepresented their intentions, using the funds for personal expenses and a failed real estate investment.
A default judgment was initially obtained against both defendants, but later set aside for Mr. Adas.
At trial, the court found Mr. Adas liable for breach of fiduciary duty and civil fraud, concluding that he misused the funds and deliberately misled the plaintiff.
The court ordered Mr. Adas to repay the $100,000 jointly and severally with Ms. Manu, plus prejudgment interest.
Appeal allowed; Master erred in granting leave to add defendants after limitation period expired.
The appellants appealed a Master's decision granting the respondents leave to amend their statement of claim to add new defendants and claims for unjust enrichment and conversion after the expiry of the limitation period.
The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Master committed a palpable and overriding error.
The respondents failed to adduce any direct evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under section 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, that they knew of the matters underlying the proposed claims when the acts took place.
Amendment adding insurer bad‑faith claim allowed where based on already‑pleaded facts.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim in an action against their insurer arising from a residential fuel oil spill.
The proposed amendments sought to increase damages and add claims for breach of the insurer's duty of good faith together with punitive, aggravated, and exemplary damages.
The defendant argued that the amendments introduced a new cause of action barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that it would suffer non‑compensable prejudice.
The court held that the amendments relied on the same material facts already pleaded and merely advanced an alternative legal claim and additional remedies.
As all relevant facts were pleaded before the limitation period expired and no prejudice was demonstrated, leave to amend was granted.
