Martin Greenglass

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,200.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent bank approximately $6 million and declaring the judgment survived bankruptcy due to fraud.

The appellant argued the record was insufficient due to inadequate documentary production by the bank, which he claimed was necessary to determine his intent regarding a cheque-kiting scheme.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the summary judgment test and noting the appellant had over six years to bring a production motion but failed to do so until two days before the peremptory hearing.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion to amend its statement of claim against the defendant bank to allege that a specific individual was not an authorized signing officer when she conducted fraudulent transactions.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing it amounted to the withdrawal of an admission, asserted a new cause of action after the limitation period expired, and constituted an abuse of process.

The Master granted the motion, finding the original pleading was not an admission but a background fact, there was a triable issue regarding the discoverability of the new cause of action, and there was no abuse of process.

Two lawyers were victims of a fraudulent loan scheme involving counterfeit certified cheques deposited into their trust accounts.

Acting on instructions from fraudsters posing as a financing company, the lawyers issued a trust cheque and bank draft payable to a jewellery business, which were deposited into fraudulent bank accounts.

When the counterfeit instruments were discovered, the bank debited the lawyers’ trust accounts.

The plaintiffs sued the bank for conversion and negligence.

The court held that the payee was neither fictitious nor non‑existing because the drawers intended payment to an identifiable entity, and the collecting bank’s negotiation of the instruments constituted conversion.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting possession of a mortgaged property to the second mortgagee.

The appellants admitted the mortgage was valid and in default, but argued the property was owned by a trust and expressed concerns about a potential improvident sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the trust owned the property, the admitted default entitled the mortgagee to possession, and concerns about an improvident sale are not a legal defence to a claim for possession.

Following the granting of summary judgment in favour of a lender in a commercial loan enforcement action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful lender sought substantial indemnity costs based on contractual indemnity provisions in the mortgage, standard charge terms, and general security agreement.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should receive substantial indemnity costs due to alleged unfounded accusations of dishonesty and the purportedly novel nature of the dispute.

The court held that costs should follow the event and rejected the defendants’ arguments regarding misconduct and novelty.

Exercising its discretion and applying proportionality, the court awarded reduced costs rather than the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff Bank brought a motion for summary judgment on a demand loan and for possession of a mortgaged commercial property.

Although the borrower was current on monthly payments, the Bank demanded repayment based on non-financial defaults, including the unauthorized transfer of the property to a limited partnership, late financial statements, and misrepresentations in statutory declarations.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the loan documents clearly permitted demand at any time and that the non-financial breaches justified the Bank's decision to call the loan.

The appellant bank appealed a trial judgment finding it liable to its customer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the trial judge made some factual errors, there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The trial judge was entitled to find a special relationship existed between the bank and the customer, taking it outside the normal debtor-creditor relationship, and that the bank's employee breached the standard of care by providing misleading information.

The appeal was dismissed with a minor correction to the damages calculation.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of defence and granting default judgment to the respondent bank for failing to pay $3,000 in costs in a $7 million fraud action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge failed to consider the proportionality of striking the defence and the possibility of an adjournment, given the appellant was out of the country.

The orders striking the defence and granting default judgment were set aside.

An employee of the appellant hospital defrauded his employer by causing it to issue cheques to a made-up entity for services never rendered.

The cheques were deposited by an accomplice at the respondent bank.

The hospital sued the bank for conversion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the made-up entity was a 'non-existing person' under s. 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act, which allowed the bank to treat the cheques as payable to bearer and provided a complete defence to the conversion claim.

The appellant bank alleged that the respondent employee engaged in an illicit currency arbitrage scheme and unilaterally froze his bank accounts, including accounts at an affiliate and a third-party bank.

The respondent brought a motion for the release of the funds, which the motion judge granted for the non-appellant accounts.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion should be treated as one for summary judgment, and affirmed that the bank had no legal basis to unilaterally freeze the accounts at the affiliate and third-party bank without obtaining an interlocutory injunction.

The appellants, a bank and a payment processor, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for improperly debiting the respondent merchant's bank account for MasterCard fines and credit card replacement costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the payment processor was not merely an agent of the bank and that the merchant agreements, which were contracts of adhesion, did not contain provisions making the merchant liable for the specific fines or replacement costs.

Furthermore, the bank failed to prove that the merchant's conduct caused the need to replace the credit cards.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered two of the appellants to pay costs of $8,000 to the respondent.

Following an appeal regarding an equalization award where success was divided, the respondents sought costs of the appeal.

The Divisional Court noted that the appellants were successful on two of the four issues, reducing their required payment by 25%.

Given the divided success and the significant time spent on a tax issue where the appellants were unsuccessful, the court exercised its discretion to make no award of costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that determined the equalization payment required to separate a family business under a consent order.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on the valuation of the businesses, the tax treatment of parked debt under the Income Tax Act, and the scope of the issues tried.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding an agreement to pay interest on unequal shareholder loans, resulting in a $108,500 credit to the appellants.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that the respondent Bank was a holder in due course of a cheque.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the Bank took the cheque in good faith and without notice of any defect in title when it was deposited.

The Court rejected the argument that the subsequent issuance of a bank draft constituted the negotiation of the cheque by the Bank.

The appellant supplied construction materials to the respondent and signed an agreement acknowledging full payment.

The appellant later discovered it had failed to bill for several deliveries and sought to recover the outstanding amount, arguing the agreement should be set aside for common mistake.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the agreement allocated the risk of mistake to the appellant, the mistake was the appellant's fault, and the respondent had altered its position.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the facts underlying the counterclaim were known to the appellant from the beginning, and obtaining legal advice did not raise a discoverability issue.

Furthermore, there were no facts raising a genuine issue for trial concerning an alleged fiduciary duty.

The debtor appealed a decision by Jarvis J. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's factual findings, appreciation of the evidence, or application of the relevant law.

Costs were fixed at $7,500.