COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-5641-00
DATE: 2018 04 10
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
WHITE DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
Christopher Moryto, for the Plaintiff
Plaintiff
- and -
MARLOWE GORING aka MARLOWE JOHN GORING
Defendant
HEARD: December 18, 2017
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FRAGOMENI J.
[1] This matter proceeded before me by way of an uncontested trial. A Statement of Claim was issued in this matter on December 11, 2015. On February 8, 2016, the defendant was noted in default for not filing a Statement of Defence within the prescribed time.
[2] On December 18, 2017, I heard the uncontested trial. The plaintiff’s representative, James Howard White testified. Prior to reviewing his evidence, I will set out the allegations contained in the Statement of Claim.
Statement of Claim
[3] The plaintiff, White Distribution Limited (White), carries on business in Ontario and is owned by James White, its President. White carries on business as a wholesale art supplier.
[4] The defendant, Marlowe John Goring (Goring), is a business person residing in British Columbia. Goring agreed to sell paintings belonging to White on consignment. Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim states:
On or about August 15, 2012 Goring came to the home of James White (and the place of business of White Distribution Limited) in Caledon, Ontario and negotiated an agreement with White Distribution Limited whereby he requested an opportunity to sell and agreed to sell a further 29 paintings owned by the plaintiff on a consignment basis. It was at all times agreed that the paintings would remain the property of the plaintiff. The parties agreed on the wholesale value of each painting which would be required to be paid to the plaintiff by Goring in order to complete the transfer to the ultimate purchaser. Any amount Goring received above the agreed upon wholesale price was his to keep.
[5] Although the parties maintained contact, Goring did not report selling any of White’s paintings. In February 2014, White flew to British Columbia to meet with Goring. In July 2014, White learned that Goring’s gallery was closing. White made arrangements with Goring to retrieve his paintings. Goring advised White he was still in possession of all the paintings.
[6] Goring only turned over 13 of White’s paintings. Goring had no reasonable explanation for what happened to White’s other paintings.
[7] White and Goring agreed to a list of paintings that had been recovered and a list of 22 paintings that were still outstanding. Both White and Goring signed those lists dated July 14, 2014.
[8] At paras. 12 – 15 of the Statement of Claim, White pleads as follows:
The plaintiff has spent a lot of time trying to track down the balance of the paintings but has been unsuccessful and Mr. Goring has been less than helpful. The plaintiff believes Goring has simply stolen most of the missing paintings, or has traded away the plaintiff’s paintings in exchange for services or for money received which was not reported. Goring fraudulently misrepresented his ability to convey ownership of the missing paintings to members of the public and has fraudulently converted the plaintiff’s property for his own gain.
The plaintiff pleads that Goring was at all times aware that the plaintiff was the owner of these paintings and that they had been entrusted to him for the sole purpose of selling and upon sale, the agreed upon sale proceeds were to be remitted to the plaintiff. In the event a sale was not forthcoming the paintings would have been returned to the plaintiff’s possession.
The plaintiff pleads that Goring was holding the paintings in trust for the plaintiff and was likewise holding any proceeds of the sale of said paintings in trust for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff pleads that Goring is in breach of the express and implied provisions of their trust and consignment agreement and acted contrary to his duties over the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff pleads that Goring is responsible for all damages incurred by the plaintiff as a result of Goring’s breach of consignment, breach of trust, misappropriation of trust property and/or trust funds and for fraud.
[9] The wholesale value of White’s 21 paintings is $170,000.00. The plaintiff also seeks an order requiring Goring to account for the missing paintings. Finally, the plaintiff seeks aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages for Goring’s wanton and outrageous disregard of his rights.
Testimony of James Howard White
[10] Filed as Exhibit 2 at the uncontested trial is the plaintiff’s Trial Document Brief. White testified with respect to the documents set out in the brief.
[11] Tab 2 is a list of the paintings Goring took to British Columbia to sell on behalf of White. The list sets out the size of the paintings, the artist, title of the painting, and the retail and wholesale values. This list was signed by White and Goring.
[12] Tab 3 of the trial brief is a list of the paintings and their appraised values.
[13] White testified that he first became concerned about Goring in February 2014. When he travelled to British Columbia to meet with Goring that same month, he ascertained that 90% of his paintings were in Goring’s gallery and not sold.
[14] The list of items set out in Tab 3 of the trial brief have not been returned to White by Goring.
[15] In September 2014, Goring admitted to White that he no longer had the pieces he took out to British Columbia and did not have the money from their sale.
[16] Tab 4 of the trial brief sets out two relevant emails between the parties and it is informative to reproduce those:
From: Marlowe Goring Sent: September-08-14 2:57 PM To: James White Subject: Re:
Jim, I have been sitting here, knowing that this moment would come and I have dreaded this more than anything in my life. First of all I consider you one of my closest friends and that is what makes this so hard. Even after story after story you were still willing to help me out of the mess I have gotten myself into. I don’t deserve a friend like you. I would like us to work through tis and remain friends but that will be up to you. I always thought that the gallery would come through and make everything work out but due to lack of sales and having such a debt load I should have known sooner that it just couldn’t. I thought that opening the wine bar would bail me out but alas even with the investment of 100,000.00 from Lovett I could just barely stay afloat because of the cost of building the gallery and the tax debt that I was carrying. Immediately after receiving the funds from Lovett the CRA swooped in and took 55,000.00 and I owed back rent of 35,000.00 dollars which also went out the door. The remaining 10,000.00 went to the framing wholesaler. I have no money and I also have none of your art. I know that I owe you 221,000.00 and I want to make sure that you are paid every penny. We can start with the 40,000. That you will receive when the house sells. I also will receive a lump sum when my mother passes away. That will be approximately 150,000.00. I truly love you as a friend and you are one of the only men that has stuck with me when everybody else has kicked me to the curb. I understand that you are extremely pissed off and I can understand why. I always have thought that I would have the funds but as of yet I have no way of making the money needed. I’m an art salesman and that is what I do. I need a market to sell art and that is not here. I know that I can sell art in Toronto but I don’t know how to start up there with no money and no art. I’m sure that calling the RCMP has crossed your mind but that will not get you your funds back. I am at your mercy and I will work extremely hard in order to pay you back. Hopefully you have some ideas that we can work on to get this back to a partnership that can work. I know I’m asking a lot but I cannot bear the thought of us not being friends anymore.
Hoping we can work this out,
Marlowe.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 7, 2014, at 6:26 PM, James White wrote:
Marlowe, I last visited you on July 14/14.
I was there to recover the paintings belonging to me, and to be paid whatever you had collected.
Prior to coming you said that all paintings were there and that you would remove them from the stretchers for easy transport.
The day before we went to your storage trailer, at your home, you said I would get everything except 3 paintings.
In fact I received 13 pieces and 22 pieces were missing.
The missing pieces were valued at $442,000.00 and the amount owing to me is $221,000.00. You have a copy of both lists which we signed.
You have told me that your company bank account is frozen pending sales tax audit and that in that account is $6000.00 from Paul(we all styed at his house a few years ago)for the Sevier painting and $15,000.00 from Lovett for two small Morrisseau paintings on board.
You have provided no evidence of this.
You have told me that one painting was held by Allan Dunfield regarding a debt,and you said that you recovered it.
You have said that you employed Comox Valley Bailiffs and that they recovered 6 other paintings.
I asked for photos of them and have received nothing.
You advised that a lady(previous customer)had 1 painting,that would be paid for.
You have told me that you received $100,000.00 from Lovett for the two largest pieces and that you deposited his cheque in your personal account.
On Friday Sept 5/14,by phone you advised me that you were returning from Nanaimo with your final cheque(having been fired from a car dealership) and were going to get the recovered paintings,and a bank draft for me as Lovett’s cheque had cleared.
You said that you would advise the tracking number for the draft later that day.
It is now Sunday evening Sept7/14,and you have not contacted me.
We have been friends for years,our families have stayed with each other and I believed we were close.
That is why I have tried to believe in you and refused to accept that you could steal from me and create a story of lies that would ultimately cost me a friend and 4221,000.00.
As I have said repeatedly I will come out there to assist to resolve any of these matters,or to take such action as may be available to me.
If you can demonstrate that there can be some resolution,please advise.
If I do not hear from you by 5:00PM your time Tuesday Sept 9/14, I shall take such action as I may.
Jim
[17] Tab 5 of the trial brief is a note dated Sept. 17, 2014, in which Goring pledged security for the $170,000.00 owing to White from his mother’s inheritance. After this date Goring declared bankruptcy. The Trustee is aware of this action but has no interest in it.
[18] Tab 1 of the trial brief sets out the Statement of Claim issued by White. Schedule “A” is the list of unreturned art belonging to White. Schedule “A” sets out the following:
Schedule “A”
LIST OF UNRETURNED ART
BELONGONG TO WHITE DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
| Artist | Title | Retail |
|---|---|---|
| Norval Morrisseau | Spirits Journey | $12,500 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Warrior Finds Soma | $12,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Shaman Rider | $50,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Father Spirits | $12,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Sacred Beaver | $8,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Medicine Bear | $18,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Inorganics | $15,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Seven Watching Spirits | $11,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Self Portrait | $15,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Thunderbird Rider | $15,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Man in Canoe | $12,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Bear Rider | $12,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Ancient Warriors | $150,000 |
| Gerald Sevier | Harrison Lake | $12,000 |
| Christian Morrisseau | Bear Doctor Teaching | $6,000 |
| Christian Morrisseau | Spiritual Woodlang Together | $6,000 |
| Christian Morrisseau | Bear Doctor’s Journey | $6,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Plains of Wasacajak | $40,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Purple | $9,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Orange/Red | $25,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Pink Piece | $25,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Shaman/Snakes | $10,000 |
[19] White testified that he is seeking punitive damages on the basis that he had to travel to British Columbia three times to deal with Goring and his paintings. Goring was a friend of his and he feels that Goring took advantage of this close personal relationship and misappropriated White’s paintings. James White is very personally offended by Goring’s conduct.
Analysis
[20] Rule 19.02(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states:
A defendant who has been noted in default,
(a) is deemed to admit the truth of all allegations of fact made in the statement of claim
[21] Rule 25.06 (8) states:
Where fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, malice or intent is alleged, the pleading shall contain full particulars, but knowledge may be alleged as a fact without pleading the circumstances from which it is to be inferred. O. Reg. 61/96, s. 1.
[22] It is important to note that even when a trial proceeds as an uncontested trial, the allegations made in the Statement of Claim and any testimony received at the uncontested trial must be sufficient to establish a basis for the claims being made. (See Rule 19.06).
[23] In this case the plaintiff claims the following relief and submits, as set out in his draft Judgment, that there are sufficient grounds to establish each one:
− general damages of $170,000
− aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages of $30,000
− a declaration that White Distribution Ltd. is the owner of the 21 pieces of art listed in Schedule A
− breach of trust
− misappropriation of trust property or trust funds
− embezzlement
− fraudulent conversion
− fraud
Breach of Trust
[24] I am satisfied that a trust relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Tab 2 of the plaintiff’s Trial Document Brief supports this finding. The allegations set out in para. 5 of the Statement of Claim establish the following:
that the parties intended to create a trust and a trust was in fact created. The paintings would remain the property of the plaintiff while they were in the possession of the defendant pursuant to their consignment agreement
the subject matter of the trust related to the paintings themselves or, when sold, the wholesale value funds collected for each painting sold, and
the beneficiary of the trust was the plaintiff
[25] Paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim makes it clear that “in the event a sale was not forthcoming the paintings would be returned to the plaintiff’s possession.”
[26] The September 8, 2014 e-mail from the defendant to the plaintiff is evidence that the defendant breached his duties to account for and preserve the trust property, namely the paintings, and/or the funds from the sale of same. The defendant states in the email: “I also have none of your art. I know that I owe you $221,000…”
[27] I am satisfied that the plaintiff has established a breach of trust claim and is, therefore, entitled to damages in the sum of $170,000.
Misappropriation of Trust Funds
[28] In Re Mittelstadt (Estate), 2002 ABQB 656, 115 A.C.W.S. (3d) 187, the Court stated the following at paras. 17 & 18:
There has been a breach of trust by Bruno Mittelstadt, and a failure to adequately pass his accounts. This is not a situation where there is any benefit in ordering further information, or for instance, the involvement of an accountant. The joint account documentation is before the court, oral evidence has been given, and there are no other documents. Bruno Mittelstadt clearly misappropriated trust funds to his own use.
As set out in paragraph [16], on a passing of accounts in a trial situation, where it becomes obvious that the trustee has taken trust monies for his own purposes, and where those requesting the accounting have made it clear they are seeking restitution of those funds, the court has the power to direct that the trustee return the funds, or if not segregated in his possession, to give a judgement in favour of the estate or trust against the trustee.
[29] This claim that the plaintiff’s trust funds were misappropriated is supported by the pleadings and the defendant’s acknowledgement that he does not have the paintings.
[30] Further, the defendant’s unsatisfactory accounting of the plaintiff’s paintings supports an inference that he misappropriated the plaintiff’s paintings.
Embezzlement
[31] Any finding of embezzlement is either equivalent to or subsumed in the finding of misappropriation of trust funds.
Fraudulent Conversion
[32] I am satisfied that the plaintiff has established conversion as a result of the defendant’s wrongful interference with the paintings. In this case the plaintiff’s unsold paintings remained his property. In the event a sale was not forthcoming, the paintings would be returned to the plaintiff. This never happened.
[33] In Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 1996 CanLII 149 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 727, at para. 31, the Court noted that “Conversion” on the other hand, is a tort that “involves a wrongful interference with the goods of another, such as taking, using or destroying these goods in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s right of possession. The tort is one of strict liability, and accordingly, it is no defence that the wrongful act was committed in all innocence.”
[34] I am also satisfied on the evidentiary record before me that the conversion was fraudulent. At paragraph 12 and 13 of the Statement of Claim, White sets out the following:
The plaintiff has spent a lot of time trying to track down the balance of the paintings but has been unsuccessful and Mr. Goring has been less than helpful. The plaintiff believes Goring has simply stolen most of the missing paintings, or has traded away the plaintiff’s paintings in exchange for services or for money received which was not reported. Goring fraudulently misrepresented his ability to convey ownership of the missing paintings to members of the public and has fraudulently converted the plaintiff’s property for his own gain.
The plaintiff pleads that Goring was at all times aware that the plaintiff was the owner of these paintings and that they had been entrusted to him for the sole purpose of selling and upon sale, the agreed upon sale proceeds were to be remitted to the plaintiff. In the event a sale was not forthcoming the paintings would be returned to the plaintiff’s possession.
Fraud
[35] The four elements of the tort of civil fraud were set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 126, at para 21:
From this jurisprudential history, I summarize the following four elements of the tort of civil fraud: (1) a false representation made by the defendant; (2) some level of knowledge of the false hood of the representation on the part of the defendant (whether through knowledge or recklessness); (3) the false representation caused the plaintiff to act; and (4) the plaintiff’s actions resulted in a loss.
[36] In Brozmanova v. Tarshis, 2017 ONSC 6559, 285 A.C.W.S. (3d) 856, the Court noted the following at paras. 17 – 20:
[17] The only cause of action that is pleaded is that of fraud. The requirements of civil fraud were set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 126 (“Bruno Appliance”) at para. 21 as follows:
a. There is a false representation by the defendant;
b. Some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the representation on the part of the defendant;
c. The false representation caused the plaintiff to act; and
d. The Plaintiff’s actions resulted in a loss.
All four of these elements must be satisfied in order to make out a claim for civil fraud.
[18] Here, the Claim does not plead that the Defendants made any representation to Ms. Brozmanova. The only representations by Dr. Tarshis that are referenced in the Claim are those he made to OHIP. Nor did Ms. Brozmanova act, or fail to take action, on the basis of representations made by Dr. Tarshis. This has the further consequence that Ms. Brozmanova cannot establish that she suffered an actionable loss resulting from Dr. Tarshis’ representations, since any such loss must flow from actions she took in reliance on his representations.
[19] The only representations made to Ms. Brozmanova were by OHIP. The Claim does state that she relied on those representations, and she claims to have suffered a loss from such reliance. But the Claim does not allege that OHIP’s representations are connected to, or attributable to, Dr. Tarshis. Thus she cannot rely on the representations made to her by OHIP in order to found a claim for fraud against Dr. Tarshis.
[20] In short, the Claim does not disclose any cause of action in fraud, since there is no claim that Ms. Brozmanova acted, or failed to act, on the basis of representations by Dr. Tarshis, with the further result that she cannot establish that she has suffered any actionable loss flowing from Dr. Tarshis’ representations. Therefore it is plain and obvious that the Claim fails to satisfy the third and fourth elements of civil fraud identified in Bruno Appliance.
[37] In Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Deloitte and Touche, 2016 ONCA 922, 133 O.R. (3d) 561, the Court stated the following at para. 43:
The third element of civil fraud summarized in Combined Air entails considering inducement and reliance. As the Divisional Court noted in respect of the lenders’ claims in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Deloitte & Touche (2003), 2003 CanLII 38170 (ON SCDC), 172 O.A.C. 59, at para. 24, “The claims of negligent and reckless misrepresentation both require the plaintiffs to prove at trial that there have been representations of fact by each of the defendants upon which they relied.”
[38] In BLM Investments v. FCMI, 2017 ONSC 7327, 286 A.C.W.S. (3d) 642, Glithero J. stated at para. 55:
There is a genuine issue as to whether Mr. Brodsky told Mr. McConnell that he owned 2-3 million shares of FCMI. If he did, it may well have served to induce the plaintiff to invest by way of connoting Mr. Brodsky’s belief in the viability of the project.
[39] In the case at bar, all four requirements are met:
the defendant made the false representations as set out in the Statement of Claim
the defendant had some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the representations
the false representations caused White to enter into the consignment agreement and
White’s actions resulted in a loss.
Punitive Damages
[40] Punitive damages are awarded in exceptional cases. The leading case on punitive damages is Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595.
[41] In Whiten, a case involving reprehensible conduct by an insurer, the majority held that the recognized justifications for an award for punitive damages are retribution, denunciation and deterrence and that punitive damages are limited to cases where the defendant’s behaviour amounts to misconduct that represents a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. The majority went on to state that the quantum of the award ought to be rationally proportionate to the end sought to be achieved. The majority discussed several factors that determine the proper amount of a punitive damages award, many of which are of particular relevance to the matter before me:
a) The blameworthiness of the defendant’s conduct. The factors that influence blameworthiness include:
i. whether the misconduct was planned and deliberate;
ii. the intent and motive of the defendant;
iii. whether the defendant persisted in the outrageous conduct over a lengthy period of time;
iv. whether the defendant concealed or attempted to cover up its misconduct;
v. whether the defendant was aware that what he or she was doing was wrong;
vi. whether the defendant profited from the misconduct; and
vii. whether the interest violated by the misconduct was known to be deeply personal to the plaintiff or a thing that was irreplaceable;
b) The degree of vulnerability of the plaintiff;
c) The harm or potential harm directed specifically at the plaintiff;
d) The need for deterrence;
e) Whether other penalties, both civil and criminal, are likely to be inflicted on the defendant for the same conduct; and
f) The advantage wrongfully gained by the defendant from the misconduct.
[42] In 1698496 Ontario Ltd. v. Zoberi, 2015 ONSC 5267, 59 R.P.R. (5th) 266, at para. 23, the Court stated:
As noted in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance (2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 at paragraph 36), punitive damages are awarded in exceptional cases for “malicious, high handed” conduct that offends the court’s sense of decency. In order to trigger an award of punitive damages, the conduct must represent a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour.
[43] In Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 30, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 3, the Court set out the following at para. 62:
By their nature, contract breaches will sometimes give rise to censure. But to attract punitive damages, the impugned conduct must depart markedly from ordinary standards of decency — the exceptional case that can be described as malicious, oppressive or high-handed and that offends the court’s sense of decency: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, at para. 196; Whiten, at para. 36. The misconduct must be of a nature as to take it beyond the usual opprobrium that surrounds breaking a contract. As stated in Whiten, at para. 36, “punitive damages straddle the frontier between civil law (compensation) and criminal law (punishment)”. Criminal law and quasi-criminal regulatory schemes are recognized as the primary vehicles for punishment. It is important that punitive damages be resorted to only in exceptional cases, and with restraint.
[44] In Lauzon v. There It Was Gone Inc., 2012 ONSC 3583, 218 A.C.W.S. (3d) 327, the Court stated the following at para. 83:
Ms. Lauzon claimed aggravated and punitive damages. Although not pressed vigorously in argument, I do find Mr. Drummond did act in a callous and high-handed manner towards Ms. Lauzon by dealing with the inventory entrusted to him for listing on eBay without any regard to Ms. Lauzon’s legitimate interest in it and through his persistent failure to respond to her repeated requests to ascertain the status and whereabouts of her inventory. This conduct is worthy of condemnation by the Court and I therefore assess aggravated or punitive damages against Mr. Drummond in the sum of $10,000.00.
[45] I am satisfied that the Lauzon case is similar to the factual matrix in the case at bar. I am satisfied that, as in Lauzon, punitive damages of $10,000.00 would be appropriate, fair and reasonable.
[46] The allegations set out in the Statement of Claim, deemed to be admitted, along with White’s testimony at the uncontested trial supports this finding.
[47] Judgment to issue as follows:
that the defendant pay the plaintiff $170,000.00 for general damages and $7,580.60 for pre-judgment interest
that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s legal costs fixed in the all-inclusive sum of $7,500.00
a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the 21 pieces of art listed in Schedule “A” attached hereto
a declaration that the defendant was holding the said 21 pieces of art or the proceeds of their sale, in trust for the plaintiff
a declaration that the defendant’s actions constitute a breach of trust and misappropriation of trust property and/or trust funds and conversion of trust property and/or trust funds
a declaration that the defendant’s actions constitute a fraud and fraudulent conversion
that the defendant return to the plaintiff any of the said 21 pieces of art still in his possession, power or control
that the defendant provide to the plaintiff within 90 days of the date of this judgment an accounting for each of the said 21 pieces of art or the proceeds of sale, if any, of the said art pieces
that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of $10,000.00
that this judgment bears interest from the date of judgment in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act.
Fragomeni J.
Released: April 10, 2018
Schedule “A”
LIST OF UNRETURNED ART
BELONGONG TO WHITE DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
| Artist | Title | Retail |
|---|---|---|
| Norval Morrisseau | Spirits Journey | $12,500 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Warrior Finds Soma | $12,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Shaman Rider | $50,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Father Spirits | $12,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Sacred Beaver | $8,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Medicine Bear | $18,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Inorganics | $15,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Seven Watching Spirits | $11,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Self Portrait | $15,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Thunderbird Rider | $15,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Man in Canoe | $12,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Bear Rider | $12,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Ancient Warriors | $150,000 |
| Gerald Sevier | Harrison Lake | $12,000 |
| Christian Morrisseau | Bear Doctor Teaching | $6,000 |
| Christian Morrisseau | Spiritual Woodlang Together | $6,000 |
| Christian Morrisseau | Bear Doctor’s Journey | $6,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Plains of Wasacajak | $40,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Purple | $9,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Orange/Red | $25,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Pink Piece | $25,000 |
| Norval Morrisseau | Shaman/Snakes | $10,000 |
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-5641-00
DATE: 2018 04 10
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
WHITE DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
– and –
MARLOWE GORING aka MARLOWE JOHN GORING
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Fragomeni J.
Released: April 10, 2018