fraudulent misrepresentation

The plaintiffs, TVM Cobourg Inc. and TVM Construction Management Inc., brought a motion to compel the defendants, Peter C. Hillar and Greyfield Construction Co. Ltd., to answer outstanding undertakings and refusals from discovery.

The action concerns damages for fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and defamation related to a condominium development, with a counterclaim by the defendants for amounts owing.

The court analyzed the refusals based on relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, categorizing them into Greyfield's damages/non-payment, parallel proceedings, and obligations under the Rules.

The court ordered the defendants to answer specific refusals and produce a consolidated affidavit of documents, and to clarify the remaining amount owed.

This appeal concerned a dispute over the purchase and sale of a luxury home, where the purchaser sought rescission of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale due to fraudulent misrepresentation and latent defect.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment for rescission and equitable damages against the seller.

The appellants (seller and co-defendants) argued errors in the finding of fraudulent misrepresentation, latent defect, and the appropriateness of partial summary judgment given a pending conspiracy claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding of fraudulent misrepresentation based on the seller's failure to disclose safety risks and false representations, and upheld the partial summary judgment, finding no risk of inconsistent findings between corporate and personal liability for fraud.

BZAM Ltd. and Cortland Credit Lending Corporation brought a motion for security for costs against Final Bell Holdings International Ltd. within an ongoing CCAA proceeding.

Final Bell had initiated a claim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation against BZAM and seeking damages and equitable relief, including a constructive trust.

The court determined that Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, concerning security for costs, applies to claims within CCAA proceedings, and that Cortland, as a directly affected stakeholder, was entitled to seek such security.

Finding that Final Bell was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award, the court ordered Final Bell to post security for costs in favour of BZAM ($350,000) and Cortland ($147,000).

Additionally, Final Bell was ordered to pay the costs of the motion to BZAM ($20,000) and Cortland ($8,500).

This motion concerned the enforcement of a settlement agreement reached in open court regarding three complex estate applications.

The respondent, David Chong, sought to resile from the settlement, claiming duress, lack of comprehension, and fraudulent misrepresentation, and arguing the terms were unconscionable.

The court found David's reasons for resiling contradictory and uncorroborated, particularly in light of his former counsel's evidence.

The court dismissed the respondent's arguments, finding no inequality in bargaining power, no duress, and no fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the property as per the settlement terms and fixed costs against the respondent.

This motion was brought by creditors (Moving Parties) to lift the automatic stay of proceedings against a discharged bankrupt (Defendant) under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The Moving Parties alleged that the bankrupt obtained loans through fraudulent misrepresentation, a debt not released by discharge under s. 178(1)(e) BIA.

The court found that the bankrupt made false representations about his company's financial health prior to receiving funds, which the creditors relied upon.

The court determined it was equitable to lift the stay, allowing the creditors to continue their civil action against the bankrupt.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich Order against David Shpilt, who was added as a defendant in an ongoing fraud action.

The plaintiffs had invested significant funds in a cannabis business, Sustainable Growth Strategic Capital Corp., which they alleged was fraudulent.

Shpilt was found to have drafted a forged contract used to induce investment and received over $110,000 of the plaintiffs' funds.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation against Shpilt, a serious risk of asset dissipation, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the Mareva injunction.

For the Norwich Order, the court determined there was a bona fide claim, a connection between financial institutions and the fraud, and that the order was the only practical source of information to trace funds.

Both the Mareva injunction and Norwich Order were granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs, unit owners in a retirement home development, brought a motion to add additional parties as defendants and amend their Statement of Claim.

They alleged that the original defendant, Pensio Property Management Group Inc., defaulted on rental income guarantees and, along with proposed individual defendants and Rentalis Insurance Company, Inc., made fraudulent misrepresentations.

They also sought to add Tripemco Insurance Group Limited, the broker, for negligence.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendments properly pleaded causes of action and that joinder of all parties was appropriate, promoting the convenient administration of justice despite arguments of prematurity.

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 plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to add David Shpilt and Pamela Atkinson as defendants, amend their statement of claim, register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the Homewood Property, and validate service on Mr. Shpilt.

The court granted the motion with respect to adding Mr. Shpilt as a defendant, allowing the amendment of the statement of claim to include him, and validating service on him.

The balance of the motion, concerning Ms. Atkinson and the CPL, was adjourned due to insufficient service on Ms. Atkinson.

An interim order was issued to prevent the transfer or sale of the Homewood Property pending the adjourned hearing.

The applicants sought declarations that their former home insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying action for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation regarding the sale of their property.

The insurer denied coverage, citing contractual liability exclusion, late notice, and alleged misrepresentation by the insured.

The court applied the Scalera test for duty to defend, finding that while the alleged property damage could fall within coverage, an "entire agreement" clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale precluded reliance on oral misrepresentations.

Consequently, the claims were, in substance, based on representations in the sales contract, which were excluded by the policy's contractual liability exclusion.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a judgment declaring a life insurance policy valid, arguing fraudulent misrepresentation by the insured regarding a criminal conviction.

The policy had been in force for over five years, triggering an incontestability clause under the Insurance Act, requiring the insurer to prove fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal and motion to admit fresh evidence.

While acknowledging the application judge erred in disregarding admissions of the conviction, the Court found this error did not alter the ultimate conclusion that the insurer failed to prove the misrepresentation was made with the intent required for civil fraud (knowledge or recklessness), concluding it was likely due to mistake or negligence.

This case involved a construction dispute where the plaintiff, Save On Contracting, claimed construction liens and damages against the defendant property owners.

The defendants counterclaimed for costs to complete and correct deficiencies, alleging Save On repudiated the contract.

The court analyzed the contract's interpretation regarding Tarion warranty security, whether one of the defendants was a "builder" under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, and whether Save On fundamentally breached the contract.

The court found that Save On repudiated the contract by making groundless payment demands and abandoning the site.

Consequently, Save On's claims were dismissed, and the defendants were awarded damages for the costs of completing the work and correcting deficiencies.

This case concerns a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract related to the purchase of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Following a prior summary judgment against one defendant for breach of contract, the court proceeded to trial to determine fraud claims against the corporate principals and a related company.

The court found that the individual defendants, as directing minds of the primary corporate defendant, made knowing false representations about a "factory direct" relationship with the PPE manufacturer and the direct transfer of funds, thereby inducing the plaintiff to enter the agreement and suffer financial loss from undelivered goods.

The court pierced the corporate veil, holding the individual defendants and a sister company jointly and severally liable for the fraudulent misrepresentation.

This endorsement addresses three motions in an oppression action concerning the Paramount Group, a food services business facing shareholder deadlock.

The plaintiffs (Mohamad Fakih et al.) moved to strike portions of the defendants' counterclaim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and for security for costs.

The defendants (AHM Investments Corporation et al.) moved for compliance with financial disclosure and the appointment of an auditor.

The court partially granted the motion to strike due to insufficient particulars of fraud.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, as the counterclaim was inextricably linked to the defence and, at its core, an oppression remedy claim, which is exempt from security for costs under the OBCA.

The defendants' motion for financial disclosure and the appointment of an auditor was granted, affirming shareholders' mandatory right to audited financial statements, with the Paramount Group responsible for the audit fees.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, arguing they were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or prejudicial.

The impugned allegations detailed a long-standing relationship between the plaintiff and a non-party, Mr. Ahlowalia, including his alleged role as a spiritual leader of a "cult" and the plaintiff's unpaid labour and expectation of corporate ownership.

The plaintiff argued these details were necessary to prove the reasonableness of his expectations for an ownership interest (oppression remedy), fraudulent misrepresentation, and constructive dismissal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the allegations were relevant to the plaintiff's understanding of his role and expectations within the defendant corporations, and that it was not a "clearest of cases" for striking pleadings.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellants, an Indian law firm and its senior partner, appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay or dismiss an action brought by Kyko Global Inc., an Ontario corporation.

The action alleged negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract related to a legal opinion provided by the appellants.

The appellants argued that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not the convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter based on presumptive connecting factors (tort occurring in Ontario, contract made in Ontario) and that the appellants failed to demonstrate that Mumbai, India, was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The appellant's appeal from an order striking out pleadings was dismissed.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondent, finding that the appellant's conduct, including misogynistic attacks and continuing allegations of fraud, was reprehensible and warranted such an award, consistent with the motion judge's original costs order.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend its Amended Amended Statement of Claim to include new allegations of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, and punitive damages, claiming these were recently discovered.

The defendant opposed, arguing the amendments constituted a new cause of action barred by the Limitations Act and that they would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to purged records.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding that leave under Rule 48.04(1) was not required for general amendments under Rule 26.01, and that the issues of discoverability and alleged prejudice from purged records were best determined by the trial judge.

The individual defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's claim against them for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, as officers/directors of the vendor corporation, knowingly provided a false lease and statutory declarations regarding the property's condition and tenant obligations during a property sale.

The defendants argued the claim was an attempt to convert a breach of contract into a personal tort.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation was sufficiently pleaded, as allegations of fraud, deceit, and dishonesty against corporate officers/directors can proceed, taking their actions outside their corporate role.

The Applicant brought a motion for disclosure of the Respondent's solicitor's file and for responses to questions refused during questioning.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for disclosure of the Applicant's solicitor's file.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement, alleging the Respondent materially misrepresented his financial circumstances by failing to disclose a significant business sale.

The court found that the Respondent had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting his state of mind at issue in his defence against allegations of intentional torts.

The court also determined that settlement privilege did not apply to the Respondent's settlement discussions due to the public interest in ensuring full and frank disclosure in cases of alleged misrepresentation.

The Applicant's motion was granted, and the Respondent's cross-motion was dismissed.