Fraud

The appellant, Sajjad Asghar, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his action and the grant of summary judgment in favour of the respondent, Dial and File Process Servers Inc. The original action sought summary judgment against the respondent for not timely returning legal documents.

The motion judge found no liability on the part of the respondent for any asserted causes of action (fraud, breach of contract, Consumer Protection Act) and granted summary judgment to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's comprehensive analysis and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent did nothing wrong.

In an extradition proceeding, the applicants (Balogun and O'Connor) brought a motion for disclosure of materials related to voice identification and information from co-operating witnesses.

The court dismissed the request for disclosure of items obtained or generated by US investigators (including most voice identification materials, and information from Individual 1 and Josue Rivera) due to a lack of jurisdiction, affirming that domestic disclosure obligations do not extend to foreign jurisdictions unless an abuse of process is alleged.

However, the court granted the request for disclosure of two Canadian bank audio recordings used as baseline comparators for voice identification, finding that the applicants met the "air of reality" test for manifest unreliability of the voice identification evidence, particularly concerning opinions about "distinct Canadian" and "distinct Nigerian" accents.

The court emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair extradition hearing based on admissible and reliable evidence.

A lawyer pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000, having misappropriated over $3.2 million from multiple clients and estates through a profound breach of trust.

The court sentenced him to 58 months imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence due to the gravity, duration, and significant impact of the fraud, and the exploitation of his professional position.

Restitution orders were issued in favour of the Law Society of Ontario and one estate, while a claim for legal fees by another victim was declined.

The appellant, Shaun Rootenberg, appealed his conviction for fraud over $5,000 and his six-year sentence.

The conviction appeal raised two issues: the unreasonableness of the verdict regarding the dishonest diversion of funds, and the trial judge's refusal to grant a stay of proceedings due to alleged section 8 Charter violations from strip searches during pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding the fraud conviction overwhelmingly supported by evidence and no Charter breach in the strip searches, or if there was, it did not warrant a stay.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the six-year sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's prior fraud convictions and the devastating impact on the complainant.

The appellant, Brian Kumar, sought a review of a single judge's order requiring him to post $5,000 security for costs before proceeding with his motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The underlying action involved allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against Kumar, whose statement of defence was struck due to non-compliance with court orders.

The Court of Appeal panel dismissed Kumar's review motion, affirming the original order for security for costs due to his consistent pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

The appellant, Alexsander Budimirovic, appealed his conviction for two counts of fraud and one count of attempted fraud.

The appeal raised four grounds: the trial judge's failure to give a limiting instruction on propensity reasoning between counts, error in admitting videotaped hearsay statements (Hockett Statements) for their truth, failure to caution the jury about relying on the Hockett Statements without corroboration, and refusal to grant an adjournment after the appellant discharged his counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's instructions on propensity reasoning, the admissibility of the Hockett Statements based on procedural reliability, the adequacy of the caution regarding the statements, and the proper exercise of discretion in refusing the adjournment.

Sase Aggregate Ltd. appealed a lower court decision that largely dismissed its claims against Michelle Langdon, wife of a former pit manager who defrauded Sase of over $2.1 million.

Sase sought a constructive trust over the proceeds of sale of a property owned by Langdon, alleging knowing receipt, knowing assistance, and unjust enrichment.

The application judge found Langdon had no knowledge of the fraud and that Sase failed to properly trace its funds into the property, except for an admitted amount of $177,632.38.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Sase's appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that Sase failed to establish the elements for knowing receipt, knowing assistance, or to properly trace the bulk of the funds into the property, and that Langdon's legitimate sources of funds were adequately explained.

The plaintiffs, Li Yang (Canada) Holdings Co. Ltd. and Daniel Executive (Canada) Holdings Corp., sought a Mareva injunction against multiple defendants involved in an alleged multi-layered fraud scheme concerning luxury vehicle exports.

The court found a strong prima facie case for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy against the Lin Defendants (LYSR Management Ltd., 2708042 Ontario Inc., 2786584 Ontario Inc., Rina Shinchi, Yangguang Lin) and the Zheng Defendants (Wei Zheng, Location Way Inc.).

The court also found a real risk of asset dissipation, noting the defendants' fraudulent conduct and attempts to mislead.

The motion was dismissed against Zi Mu Li and Renxiangyu Zhang due to insufficient evidence.

The Mareva injunction was granted against the remaining defendants to prevent asset dissipation.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs), alleging the plaintiff fraudulently obtained them by withholding a financial statement from a prior matrimonial file.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking to dismiss the defendants' motion as an abuse of process.

The court found that the defendants had prior knowledge of the "material and crucial" evidence but consciously chose not to present it at the original CPL motion.

Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, dismissing the defendants' motion to discharge the CPLs on the basis of abuse of process.

The court also criticized the defendants' litigation strategy and ordered that no further motions could be brought without leave of the Commercial List Team Lead.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Family Division, lacked jurisdiction to set aside a Consent Final Order issued by the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench.

The applicant wife had commenced an application in Ontario to set aside the New Brunswick order, alleging fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent regarding his retirement status, which impacted spousal support waiver and pension division.

The court determined that an Ontario court does not possess the inherent or statutory jurisdiction to set aside a final order from another province, particularly when the original order was based solely on provincial legislation and not the Divorce Act.

The court noted that while interjurisdictional support orders have specific statutory mechanisms (e.g., ISOA), these do not extend to setting aside the original order itself.

The respondent's motion was granted, and the applicant's underlying application was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 and possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000.

He appealed his conviction and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The court found that the trial judge's central credibility finding against the appellant was tainted by two errors: procedural unfairness, as it was based on an issue not raised by the Crown in submissions or cross-examination, and a material misapprehension of evidence, specifically failing to consider that the appellant and a key defence witness were legally prohibited from communicating.

These errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice, precluding the application of the curative proviso.

The appellant, Denise Henn, appealed a 12-month custodial sentence for fraud over $45,000.

The Court of Appeal found two errors in principle by the sentencing judge: erroneously treating lack of restitution as an aggravating factor and failing to consider relevant mitigating factors (diagnosed mental health issues and financial distress, not greed, as the cause of the fraud).

The appeal was allowed, and a conditional sentence of two years less a day with house arrest and a standalone restitution order was imposed, followed by three years' probation.

The Court also found a fine in lieu of forfeiture inappropriate.

The appellant's property was sold under power of sale.

She initiated an action alleging conspiracy to defraud and moved to set aside the sale, claiming fraud and improvidence.

The motion judge dismissed all claims except for an accounting by the mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no direct or circumstantial evidence of fraud, and that the sale was not improvident, especially considering the appellant's history of default and delay.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision to assume jurisdiction over foreign defendants in a complex international fraud and conspiracy case.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) alleged that a Toronto resident orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate billions of dollars from Saudi Arabian corporations and dissipate them globally, with the assistance of family members and various corporate entities.

The appellants (foreign defendants) challenged Ontario's jurisdiction, arguing a lack of real and substantial connection.

The motion judge found jurisdiction based on contracts made in Ontario (including a gift deed central to the alleged scheme), property located in Ontario, and the tort of conspiracy being committed in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding factual errors or legal errors in applying the Van Breda test for jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicants, Walter Campbell and Olakemi Sobomehin, sought to set aside an arbitral award of $30,641.72 in favour of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2600, alleging fraud under s. 46(1) para. 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court found that while there was no actual deceit, the Condominium Corporation engaged in "constructive fraud" by misleading the Campbells into an arbitration that was purportedly about costs but actually adjudicated substantive issues the parties had agreed to remove from the dispute.

This conduct was deemed unconscionable and unfair, justifying the setting aside of the arbitral award.

The Condominium Corporation's cross-applications to enforce the award were dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought to further extend a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging a multi-million dollar fraud.

Defendant Yahya Dikeni Hashiru, director of Spotless Consultancy Inc., moved to vacate or vary the injunction, claiming he was merely a middleman facilitating a legitimate investment.

The court found Mr. Hashiru's explanation lacked credibility, particularly given his transfers of funds after being aware of the injunction.

Applying the five-step test for a Mareva injunction, the court found a strong prima facie case against Mr. Hashiru and a clear risk of asset dissipation.

The Mareva injunction was extended until further order of the court, and Mr. Hashiru's motion to vacate or vary was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property, alleging an unconscionable mortgage transaction and fraud.

The defendants Shayna Dallas and 2697909 Ontario Inc. opposed, claiming to be bona fide purchasers without notice.

The court applied the two-part test for CPLs, finding a triable claim to an interest in land and that the balance of factors favored granting the CPL, particularly due to the defendants' lack of credible evidence and questionable conduct regarding the property's transfer and value.

The appellant sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her appeal for delay and to extend time to perfect the appeal.

The underlying appeal concerned a motion judge's decision to dismiss the appellant's action via reverse summary judgment, which sought to set aside a property transfer under power of sale due to alleged fraud and conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal granted the appellant's request, finding that despite some delay, she maintained an intention to appeal and had arguable grounds, particularly regarding the motion judge's assessment of "badges of fraud" in the context of a power of sale and the chargee's duties.

The court also clarified that a writ of possession requires a pre-existing order for possession, which the purchaser lacked.

Quoc Tran was convicted of possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000 and fraud over $5,000, stemming from a scheme where he received $291,459.12 through fraudulent credit card product returns orchestrated by a friend.

The court found his claim of unawareness fabricated.

In sentencing, the court considered aggravating factors, including the large sum and protracted nature of the fraud, and mitigating factors, such as Tran's lack of criminal record, pro-social life, and family responsibilities.

The court imposed a 2-year less a day conditional sentence, 2 years' probation, and a stand-alone restitution order of $291,459.12, finding it consistent with sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation without requiring incarceration.

The appellant, David Earle, appealed his conviction for fraud over $5,000 and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The trial judge had found that Earle defrauded clients of Global Precious Metals (GPM) of nearly one million dollars by leading them to believe they were purchasing physical precious metals when they were only acquiring notional "metal positions." The appeal raised issues concerning undue delay under the Charter (s. 11(b)), the trial judge's assessment of the mental element of fraud, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the quantum of restitution and fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, except for quashing the victim fine surcharge.