Civil fraud

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory Mareva injunction against the defendants to freeze their assets pending trial.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fraudulently induced him to invest approximately $350,000 in what was represented as a legitimate investment scheme.

The court granted the interlocutory Mareva injunction against one defendant based on a strong prima facie case of civil fraud, evidence of asset dissipation, and irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed as against the other defendants due to insufficient evidence of a strong prima facie case against them.

Appeal from a summary judgment order finding the appellants liable for civil fraud in connection with a fraudulent warranty repair scheme.

The appellants, through Eaton Equipment Ltd., submitted falsified invoices and receipts to Canadian Tire Corporation for repairs that were never performed, resulting in losses exceeding $3.2 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment against all appellants except Carleigh Milburn, finding that the motion judge's reasoning regarding her knowledge of the fraud was insufficiently explained and contained an inferential gap.

The appeal was allowed in part as it relates to Carleigh Milburn, but dismissed as it relates to the other appellants.

The applicant sought a declaration that debts arising from a 2016 judgment survived the respondents' discharge from bankruptcy pursuant to sections 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, alleging fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence in the original pleadings or judgment to support claims of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, defalcation in a fiduciary capacity, or obtaining property by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court determined the debt was a breach of contract, not fraud, and that the applicant was attempting to recharacterize the debt post-bankruptcy.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, brought a motion for judgment seeking to recover unpaid credit card and overdraft balances, characterizing the debt as fraud to ensure survivability in bankruptcy.

The court granted judgment for the liquidated damages (unpaid credit card and overdraft amounts) but dismissed the claims for fraud and punitive damages, finding insufficient evidence of fraudulent intent and that the request for a fraud declaration was premature.

The court also noted that the action, being for less than $10,000, should have been brought in the Small Claims Court, and consequently, no costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a one-year sentence for civil contempt imposed by the trial judge.

The appellant argued the sentence was excessive, that the judge was inflamed by the appellant's non-compliance with asset freezing and disclosure orders, and that the sentence was purely punitive rather than coercive.

The appellant also contended the sentence was out of line with other civil contempt cases.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence appropriate given the appellant's multiple opportunities to purge contempt, attempts to deceive the court, the brazen and deliberate nature of the contempt, the underlying $7 million civil fraud, and the lack of asset recovery despite the judge's delay in imposing sentence.

The appellant purchased a painting purportedly by renowned Anishinaabe artist Norval Morrisseau for $20,000, accompanied by a provenance statement.

After the Art Gallery of Ontario indicated the painting was likely a fake, the appellant sued for return of the purchase price, lost investment returns, and punitive damages.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the authenticity of the painting remained uncertain.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by rejecting expert evidence based on his own personal research not in evidence, and by misapprehending the contract's terms regarding the provenance statement.

The court awarded damages for breach of contract and the Sale of Goods Act, plus punitive damages.

The defendant law firm brought a motion for summary judgment in two companion professional negligence actions, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by issue estoppel or abuse of process.

The plaintiffs' claims alleged negligence for failing to raise the rule in *Foss v. Harbottle* as a defence in a prior civil fraud trial, an issue that had been expressly rejected by the Court of Appeal in the underlying fraud action.

The plaintiffs also filed a cross-motion seeking leave to amend their claims to raise new allegations.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were indeed barred by issue estoppel, or alternatively, by abuse of process, as the central issue of *Foss v. Harbottle*'s applicability had been finally determined against them.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend, concluding that most proposed amendments were statute-barred by the limitation period, and the remaining were either frivolous or also subject to issue estoppel.

The Gordin Family Members, defendants by counterclaim, brought a Rule 21 motion to strike portions of the counterclaim and dismiss it against them.

The counterclaim by Residences of Springhill Inc. (RSH) alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, civil fraud, and breach of contract related to an underpayment of HST on a condominium unit sale.

The court found no reasonable cause of action against the Gordin Family Members, as the pleadings failed to establish causation for the alleged torts and the breach of contract claim was negated by RSH's admission of receiving the full purchase price including HST.

The motion was granted, and the counterclaim was dismissed against the Gordin Family Members.

Appellants appealed the motion judge's refusal to enforce a settlement agreement reached at a pre-trial conference in a motor vehicle accident action.

The motion judge found that counsel's description of witnesses as "independent" amounted to civil fraud because the witnesses' son lived across the street from the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that counsel's statement was an opinion with a reasonable basis made in good faith, not a false statement of fact.

The court emphasized that findings of civil fraud against counsel could have devastating reputational consequences and could chill resolute advocacy.

The court also found that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the witnesses' connection to the plaintiffs.

Water Matrix Inc. sought a declaration that a judgment debt against Anna Maria Carnevale, arising from fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, or from obtaining property by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation, was not released by her bankruptcy discharge.

The court examined the pleadings, proceedings, and factual context, including a prior Mareva injunction and Ms. Carnevale's criminal conviction for theft.

The court found that the judgment debt fell within sections 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, as it arose from fraudulent conduct while Ms. Carnevale was in a fiduciary position and involved obtaining property by false pretenses.

The motion was granted, declaring the debt undischargeable.

The plaintiffs, having been awarded damages for civil fraud and misrepresentation regarding a septic system and retaining wall, sought full or substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants argued for no costs or reduced costs, citing partial success of the plaintiffs' claims and their own settlement offers.

The court, considering the defendants' objectionable conduct, including civil fraud and high-handed actions post-transaction, awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The court balanced the plaintiffs' partial success and some inefficiencies against the defendants' conduct and failure to make reasonable offers.

The plaintiff moved to strike portions of the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim, which alleged civil fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and equitable set-off.

The defendants' pleadings detailed a scheme where the plaintiff allegedly overbilled for goods and services and provided kickbacks to a former employee.

The court reviewed the requirements for pleading material facts and particulars, especially for allegations of fraud and conspiracy, and the elements of equitable set-off.

The motion to strike was dismissed, conditional on the defendants providing further particulars regarding false purchase orders, invoices, and claimed damages.

The appellant appealed from a trial judgment awarding the respondent US$192,000 in compensatory damages plus pre-judgment interest, $25,000 in punitive damages, and $85,000 in costs in a civil fraud case.

The trial judge found that the appellant fraudulently obtained US$200,000 from the respondent, a vulnerable widow, by misrepresenting that the funds would not be traded and then investing them in call options through his personal accounts, resulting in total loss.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, the credibility findings were supported by the record, and the punitive damages award was appropriate given the appellant's highly reprehensible conduct.

RBC General Insurance Company brought an action against its insured, Pamela Field, to recover accident benefits and property loss payments.

RBC alleged that Field made false statements and committed fraud by claiming her driver's license was suspended in error at the time of a motor vehicle accident, and by providing fabricated documents and bank statements to support her claims.

The court found that Field knowingly made false representations and engaged in fraudulent conduct, breaching her insurance policy and the reciprocal duty of good faith owed to her insurer.

RBC was awarded repayment of accident benefits and property loss, totaling $239,788.56, plus $24,000 in punitive damages.

However, RBC's claim for damages related to medical and occupational assessment expenses was disallowed due to insufficient proof of necessity and foreseeability.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's 47-page claim, arguing it failed to comply with pleading rules by being disorganized, argumentative, and lacking material facts for purported causes of action.

The court found the claim deficient, containing argument, law, opinion, and evidence rather than concise material facts.

While the claim was struck, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend within 90 days, with specific guidance provided on how to properly plead various torts, including constitutional rights infringements, breach of statutory duty, abuse of process, misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, intimidation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, civil fraud, defamation, and conspiracy.

The court emphasized the need for specific dates, connections to defendants, and supporting facts for each claim.

The Plaintiff, Water Matrix Inc., brought a motion for judgment in the principal amount of $1,302,377.98 plus interest, following the collapse of a settlement agreement with the Defendants, Anna Maria Carnevale, Stephen M. Cordeiro, and Cordeiro Trucking Limited.

The underlying action was a civil fraud claim against Ms. Carnevale, the Plaintiff's former corporate comptroller, for allegedly transferring over $1.2 million.

A settlement agreement under Rule 49 required the Defendants to pay $750,000 and sign a Consent to Judgment for $1,585,515.00, to be filed upon default.

The Defendants defaulted on the payment, even after a 30-day extension, and failed to provide evidence of financing or meet conditions for lifting a Mareva injunction on Ms. Carnevale's property.

The court found the Defendants breached the settlement agreement and that the Plaintiff's refusal to lift the injunction was reasonable.

Judgment was granted in favour of the Plaintiff for the full amount and costs.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a fraud action arising from an automobile lease transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged that signatures on credit applications associated with the lease were forged and sought substantial damages for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court held that the expert handwriting report relied upon by the plaintiffs was inadmissible because it was appended to another affidavit and lacked a proper evidentiary foundation.

Even if forgery were assumed, the plaintiffs failed to establish damages and the claim was also found to be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.

Applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment alleging civil fraud arising from altered trust ledger statements relating to land transfer tax amounts in three condominium transactions.

The moving party alleged the defendant misrepresented tax amounts, resulting in a $40,000 discrepancy and sought damages, tracing, and disgorgement.

The court found that the defendant had made a false representation and knew it was false, but determined that the plaintiff failed to establish the required element of loss because the $40,000 had been repaid pursuant to a certified cheque delivered in connection with criminal proceedings.

As a result, the claim for repayment of the $40,000 could not succeed on summary judgment.

Remaining claims, including disgorgement and related relief, were left to be determined at trial.

The defendant brought a motion to cap the monetary scope of an uncapped Mareva injunction that had frozen all of the defendants’ assets in relation to a fraud claim valued at approximately $824,000.

The plaintiff argued the injunction should remain uncapped due to evidence of a broader alleged fraudulent scheme and the possibility of additional victims asserting claims.

The court held that absent other commenced claims, it was unfair to restrain assets far exceeding the plaintiff’s claim.

The Mareva injunction was therefore capped at $1.6 million, reflecting the compensatory claim plus anticipated investigative and legal costs, and limited primarily to real estate assets.

The defendant’s request to examine the plaintiff’s senior counsel regarding the origin of investigative evidence was denied as speculative and unnecessary.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to strike a jury notice in a complex insurance dispute involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and disputed policy values.

The plaintiff sought declarations regarding the validity and terms of two life insurance policies and their cash surrender values, while also claiming substantial damages.

The court held that the core issues concerned the legal status and interpretation of the insurance agreements, constituting declaratory relief within the meaning of s. 108 of the Courts of Justice Act, which mandates that such claims be tried without a jury.

The court further found that the extensive factual issues, competing expert actuarial and forensic accounting evidence, and complex legal doctrines rendered the case unsuitable for jury determination.

The jury notice was therefore struck.