Kirsten A. Thoreson

Following a prior summary judgment finding liability for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff requested that the court address punitive damages that had been omitted from the earlier endorsement.

Relying on Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court amended the order to address the outstanding issue.

The court held that the defendant’s fraudulent misappropriation of funds from a charitable organization constituted malicious and high‑handed conduct warranting punitive damages.

Punitive damages of $50,000 were awarded, and costs of the action and motion were fixed at $150,000 pursuant to the parties’ agreement.

The court deferred its decision on whether to further extend an existing Mareva injunction pending submissions from the defendant.

A charitable organization brought a motion for summary judgment alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by a founding director who managed its day‑to‑day operations.

The evidence showed a scheme involving fabricated invoices, unauthorized expense reimbursements, and payments to related parties and vendors for personal benefit.

Applying the summary judgment framework articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the evidentiary record permitted a fair determination.

The defendant’s admissions and documentary evidence demonstrated extensive misappropriation of funds through multiple categories of false expenses.

The court granted summary judgment and ordered repayment of $697,237 plus pre‑judgment interest.

The defendant travel company brought a motion for summary judgment in a certified class proceeding alleging breach of contract relating to hotel reservation charges.

The representative plaintiff claimed that the defendant mischaracterized and inadequately disclosed its “Tax Recovery Charge” and “Service Fees,” including allegedly charging taxes based on a wholesale rate and embedding undisclosed profits within service fees.

The court held that the website Terms of Use formed part of the reservation contract but, properly interpreted, did not contain promises requiring disclosure of the calculation methodology, a breakdown of the combined fees, or the absence of a profit element.

The language merely described the nature of the charges and did not create contractual obligations consistent with the plaintiff’s interpretation.

Finding no breach of the express contractual terms, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Following a refusals motion in a certified class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the plaintiff sought costs of $14,696.25 on a partial indemnity basis.

The underlying refusals motion arose during discovery in advance of the defendant’s pending summary judgment motion and concerned questions about the calculation of a services fee and production of sample contracts.

Although the plaintiff had succeeded on the refusals motion, the defendant argued that costs should be limited and made costs in the cause pending the outcome of the summary judgment motion.

The court held that the claimed costs were excessive for the nature of the motion and accepted that costs should await the disposition of the summary judgment motion.

Costs were therefore fixed at $8,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable in the cause.