Fraud

The appellant, 1461043 Ontario Limited c.o.b. as Nuvo Iron, appealed the dismissal of its motion to vary a default judgment to add declarations of intentional breach of trust and that the judgment survived the respondents’ discharge from bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision, finding no basis in the record for the declarations sought and confirming that a mere breach of trust, even if negligent or incompetent, is insufficient to support a such an order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Adeyanju Olaniyan’s application for bail pending appeal of his committal for extradition to the United States on fraud charges.

The court reviewed the statutory test for bail pending appeal in the extradition context, emphasizing the low threshold for the merits of the appeal but the heightened concern for flight risk due to Canada’s international obligations.

The court found that Mr. Olaniyan had not established he was not a flight risk, given his prior breach of bail conditions and the inadequacy of his proposed release plan.

The application was dismissed and the appeal was ordered expedited.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by the appellants for a Norwich-type order seeking production of insurance-related documents from non-parties in the context of an appeal.

The court held that Norwich orders are a pre-trial remedy and are not available at the appellate stage.

The court also found that, even if such an order were available, it would not be appropriate in this case given the findings of fraud against the appellants and the lack of relevance of insurance proceeds to the damages award.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

This decision addresses the admissibility of evidence and the applicability of solicitor-client privilege in the context of a Gardiner hearing at sentencing for fraud.

The accused, Stephenie Chevis, pleaded guilty to fraud involving misappropriation of funds from a law firm's trust and general accounts.

The court considered whether evidence relating to certain transactions involving other clients of the law firm, potentially protected by solicitor-client privilege, could be admitted.

The judge analyzed the scope of privilege, distinguishing between protected communications and public legal instruments such as wills and mortgages once acted upon.

The court also considered the "innocence at stake" exception to privilege but found no need to pierce privilege at this stage, as the accused was not seeking to elicit privileged communications.

This decision concerns motions by the Receiver for Bridging Finance Inc. and by BlackRock Funds to lift the stay of proceedings against Gary Man Kin Ng, a bankrupt, and to validate service of a Statement of Claim.

The court granted both motions, finding that the actions for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation against Ng would not be discharged in bankruptcy, involved sufficient complexity, and required Ng as a necessary party.

The court also validated service of the Statement of Claim on Ng and the Ng Entities, as Ng had actual notice.

The decision reviews the legal test for lifting a bankruptcy stay and the requirements for validating service.

The plaintiff, William Fu, sought judgment for the repayment of funds advanced to the defendants for an investment in Nigerian crude oil.

The court found that the defendants orchestrated a fraud, making false representations to induce Fu to invest, and awarded damages, punitive damages, and costs to the plaintiff.

The court declined to find breach of contract, finding the loss was caused by fraudulent misrepresentation, and issued reasons for the award of substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Slave Paunovski, brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging fraud and dissipation of assets.

The court granted the injunction against Danny and Mara Risteski, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and knowing receipt, but dismissed the motion against Donco Investments Ltd. due to insufficient evidence.

The decision reviews the procedural history, the legal test for Mareva injunctions, and the adequacy of disclosure and evidence provided.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal and a motion for contempt against Susan Stevens for breaching court orders related to the disposition of a recreational vehicle (RV) subject to a Mareva injunction.

The court found that the orders were clear and unequivocal, that Ms. Stevens had actual knowledge of them, and that she intentionally breached them by selling the RV.

The court found Ms. Stevens in contempt, ordered her to provide documentation and pay over the proceeds, and adjourned the penalty phase to allow her an opportunity to purge her contempt.

The plaintiffs, Albert Carbone and Cathy Horvath, sought default and summary judgment against several defendants for misappropriating their life savings through a fraudulent investment scheme involving a non-existent cannabis business.

The court granted default judgment against Salvatore Boccia, David Shpilt, and 215 Holding Corp. for fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment, and summary judgment against Rosanna Boccia for fraud, conversion, and oppression.

Punitive damages were awarded against Salvatore Boccia, David Shpilt, and 215 Holding Corp. The court found the conduct to be brazen, intentional, and a marked departure from ordinary standards of behaviour, and held the defendants jointly and severally liable for the losses.

This decision concerns a dispute over millions of dollars lent to Trip Support Inc., a failed “Book Now, Pay Later” airline ticket financing business.

The plaintiffs sought a contempt order for the defendants’ failure to disclose assets as required by a Mareva injunction, while the defendants moved to set aside the injunction for inadequate disclosure by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for failing to disclose Spanish property, but also set aside the Mareva injunction due to the plaintiffs’ significant omissions in their ex parte motion materials.

The decision addresses the standards for contempt and the duty of full and frank disclosure in urgent injunction proceedings.

The applicant, Maria Elena Lao Chan, sought to set aside a 1995 divorce judgment between herself and her now-deceased husband, Wing Sang Chan, on the grounds of mistake and/or fraud.

The court reviewed the lengthy factual and procedural history, including conflicting narratives about the parties' marital status, the authenticity of affidavits, and the involvement of handwriting experts.

Ultimately, the court found insufficient evidence to support Maria's claims of fraud, inadequate child support arrangements, or lack of jurisdiction.

The motion was dismissed.

The court considered a motion for default judgment by the Bank of Montreal against Andrzej and Associates Property Management Inc. and Miguel Russell.

The claim arose from a dishonoured cheque deposited into the corporate account.

The court found the corporate defendant liable for the amount of the cheque and costs, but declined to find personal liability or fraud against Russell, nor to award punitive damages.

The court discussed the legal standards for default judgment, fraud, oppression under the OBCA, and punitive damages, ultimately granting judgment only against the corporation.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Stacey Lee Crawford, declaring her the owner of her former family home and setting aside a default judgment obtained by Veeru Kantoor.

The decision addresses the validity of a second mortgage registered by Dinesh Khanna and Metro Financial Planning Limited, finding that the mortgage amount was altered without Crawford’s consent and that the business practices of Khanna and Metro were essentially illegal.

The court found that the default judgment and subsequent transfer of the property were tainted by fraud and lack of proper accounting, and ordered the property returned to Crawford, with remaining accounting issues to proceed to trial.

The applicant, Douglas LaFramboise, sought to set aside a prior trial decision on the basis of alleged perjury and fraud by the respondent, Sylvia Zwaan, and her counsel.

The court found no new evidence or grounds to support the application, noting that the issues had already been litigated and dismissed at both the trial and appellate levels.

The motion was dismissed as an abuse of process, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Lac Seul First Nation, sought a Norwich order compelling the Bank of Nova Scotia to provide information identifying individuals and corporations alleged to have defrauded the plaintiff.

The motion was brought on notice to the Bank, which took no position, and without notice to the other defendants.

The court found that the plaintiff had a bona fide claim and that the Bank was the only practicable source of the information.

The order was granted as the interests of justice and necessity were established.

The plaintiff, Carrie Wei, moved for summary judgment against the defendants (except Zhi Qiang Wang) for $700,000 plus 30% interest, and for dismissal of the counterclaim.

The court found that the loan agreement was clear, that the defendants failed to provide any credible defence or evidence, and that the corporate veil should be pierced due to fraudulent conduct.

The counterclaim for defamation was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff, including costs.

The plaintiffs moved for default judgment after the defendant, Maria Surovova, was noted in default for failing to attend examinations for discovery.

The court found that Surovova had fraudulently misrepresented herself as a mortgage broker, induced the plaintiffs to transfer $85,221.00 to her under false pretenses, and retained the funds.

The court granted default judgment, awarded punitive damages, and ordered that the judgment survive bankruptcy under s. 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Full indemnity costs and prejudgment interest were also awarded.

Darren Pennock pleaded guilty to fraud, breach of trust, and uttering forged documents involving the misappropriation of $327,045 from the John Howard Society of Peel over seven years while serving as CEO.

The court considered aggravating factors including the breach of trust, repeated and calculated deceit, and significant impact on a vulnerable community served by the charity.

Mitigating factors included Pennock’s guilty plea and restitution made by a second mortgage on his home.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence, and sentenced Pennock to 12 months’ jail plus three years’ probation with specific conditions.

Giuseppe Agostino pleaded guilty to 10 charges across four informations, including multiple counts of break and enter, theft, fraud, mischief, and failure to comply with bail and probation orders.

He was released on bail with the understanding he would attend residential drug treatment, but failed to complete the program and committed further offences.

The Crown sought a further 6 months of jail time in addition to 69 days pre-trial custody.

The court considered aggravating factors, primarily the extensive criminal record, and mitigating factors, including the guilty plea and pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The judge found that a conditional sentence was not appropriate due to public safety concerns and the accused's failure to comply with prior orders.

A further custodial period of 90 days was imposed, consecutive to any sentence being served, along with 18 months of probation with specific conditions aimed at addressing his opiate addiction and preventing further offences.

This appeal concerned the enforceability of an unlimited and continuing guarantee executed by the appellant, Jaimee Lynn Gdak, in favour of Clearflow Commercial Finance Corp. The appellant, a director and officer of the principal debtor (Trigger Wholesale Inc.), argued she was released from the guarantee due to material changes in the indebtedness, lack of independent legal advice, lack of sophistication, unconscionability, and Clearflow's alleged breach of agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the guarantee valid, binding, and enforceable.

The court affirmed that the appellant had contracted out of common law protections regarding material changes and found no errors in the lower court's findings regarding her sophistication, the need for independent legal advice, or the interpretation of the guarantee.