COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00693397-0000

DATE: 20230131

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

1999269 ONTARIO LIMITED and 1999267 ONTARIO LIMITED

Plaintiffs

• and –

GONZALO RAUL GADEA AGUIAR a.k.a GONZALO RAUL AGUIAR GADEA, A.D. GROUP OF COMPANIES INC., ROXANA GUADALUPE MARROQUIN DONAN, ANDREE ALEJANDRO AGUIAR DONAN a.k.a ANDREE ALEJANDRO DONAN AGUIAR, ADRIAN AGUIAR DONAN a.k.a ADRIAN DONAN AGUIAR, A.R.A. GROUP OF COMPANIES INC., OPTIMA CAULKING INC., JOHN DOE, JANE DOE AND DOE CORPORATION

Defendants

Norman Groot for the Plaintiffs

HEARD: Without notice, in writing

PERELL, J.

REASONS FOR DECISION

A. Introduction

[1] The Plaintiffs, 1999269 Ontario Limited and 1999267 Ontario Limited move without notice for an interim Mareva injunction and ancillary orders against the Defendants: (a) Gonzalo Raul Gadea Aguiar; (b) A.D. Group of Companies Inc., (“A.D. Group”); and (c) Roxana Guadalupe Marroquin Donan. There are other defendants against whom relief is not being sought at this time.

[2] In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek what they label a “PayPlus” order. Pursuant to such an Order the Mareva injunction would be adjourned to proceed with notice on a fixed timetable and in the interim, Mr. Aguiar, Ms. Donan, and the A.D. Group of Companies would be ordered to provide a written accounting of the funds at issue, a sworn declaration of all worldwide assets, and to attend for an examination under oath. A “PayPlus” Order was issued in the unreported case of Payplus Corporation v. Caldarone et al. CV-20-63807.[^1]

[3] The Plaintiffs also request a Norwich Order directed to a non-party, TD Canada Trust.

[4] For the reasons that follow, I grant the Mareva injunction and the Norwich Order as requested.

B. Procedural and Evidentiary Background

[5] On January 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs commenced this action by Notice of Action.

[6] As noted below there are also parallel proceedings in Uruguay.

[7] On January 31, 2023, the Plaintiffs brought this motion for injunctive relief and for a Norwich Order. Their motion was supported by the affidavit dated January 29, 2023 of John Pollesel, who is a principal of the Plaintiffs.

[8] The Plaintiffs filed an Undertaking as to Damages.

C. Facts

[9] The facts for this urgent motion without notice are derived from Ms. Pollesel’s affidavit dated January 23, 2023.

[10] In 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalize cannabis. The planting, cultivation, harvesting, production, processing, collection, distribution and dispensing of Cannabis in Uruguay are controlled by The Institute for Regulation and Control of Cannabis (IRCCA).

[11] The Plaintiff 1999269 Ontario (“269 Ontario”) is an Ontario corporation with a registered head office in Sudbury, Ontario. John Pollesel is the Vice-President and one of three Directors of 269 Ontario. The Plaintiff 1999267 Ontario Limited (“267 Ontario”) is an Ontario corporation with a registered head office in in Sudbury, Ontario. Ontario lawyer Brian Montgomery is a director of both 269 Ontario and 267 Ontario.

[12] Between 2019 and 2021, the Plaintiffs recruited investors to invest in the medical cannabis business in Uruguay. The Plaintiffs accepted investment funds of approximately $27.5 million (USD) to acquire medicinal cannabis licenses in Uruguay, and to develop various medical cannabis production facilities, with the ultimate purpose of creating a production and export operation for medicinal cannabis flower, oils and related products to Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Europe.

[13] The Investors’ funds were loans to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs provided the investors promissory notes and/or loan agreements.

[14] The Investors’ funds, as well as the investments themselves in Uruguay, were to be managed by an ‘Agent’ appointed by the Plaintiffs. The Agent was Mr. Aguiar and his corporation A.D. Group. Mr. Aguiar is a Canadian citizen and ordinarily a resident of Ontario. He is the sole Director and Officer of the A.D. Group, which is an Ontario corporation with a registered head office in Toronto, Ontario. Ms. Donan is a resident of Ontario and is Ms. Aguiar’s spouse.

[15] The Investors transferred their funds directly to A.D. Group’s TD Canada Trust account. After the Investors transferred their funds, the Plaintiffs would receive a confirmation and signed receipt of funds from Ms. Donan, who administered the Defendants’ bank account for the investments in Uruguay.

[16] The Plaintiffs appointed Mr. Aguiar and A.D. Group as Agent because Aguiar, who was born in Uruguay, proposed the investment and he had solicited investor funds for the medicinal cannabis venture. Mr. Aguiar represented to the Plaintiffs and the Investors that he had local expertise and connections to banking and government regulation expertise in Uruguay. Mr. Aguiar represented to the Plaintiffs and to the Investors that he had strong political connections in Uruguay because of his father’s relationship with the former president of Uruguay, José “Pepe” Mujica, who had legalized cannabis in the country at the time.

[17] Mr. Aguiar had a prior business relationship and business dealings with Mr. Pollesel. They had operated an Ontario-based enterprise, Boreal Agrominerals Inc. In addition to his appointment as Agent, Mr. Aguiar received an equity stake 269 Ontario to share in the profits of the Uruguayan investments. Mr. Aguiar agreed to relocate to Uruguay for approximately two years to develop the investments.

[18] Mr. Aguiar represented to the Plaintiffs and to the Investors that A.D. Group operated a corporate USD bank account with TD Canada Trust in Toronto under Branch Transit No. 15802, Account No. 7304033. Aguiar represented that the TD Canada Trust account would be used to receive and disburse the Investors’ funds for use in the projects in Uruguay.

[19] Commencing in 2019 and through to 2021, Mr. Aguiar, through A.D. Group and various corporations formed in Uruguay, represented to the Plaintiffs and to the Investors that he was managing the investments in Uruguay for their benefit. He provided status updates representing that he established profitable investments in Uruguay.

[20] Based on Mr. Aguiar’s representations, the Plaintiffs raised approximately $27.5 million (USD) in investment funds from the Investors. There were four designated investment projects:

a. Investment No. 1 - cannabis facility “Salto” drying facility and start-up costs: $13.2 million (USD);

b. Investment No. 2 - “Salto” facility completion and land acquisition for expansion project “Artigas”: $5.7 million (USD);

c. Investment No. 3 - “Artigas” infrastructure, irrigation and fencing: $5,6 million (USD); and

d. Investment No. 4 - Organic Free Trade Zone creation and start-up costs: $2,9 million (USD).

[21] Mr. Aguiar represented that the necessary licences for these projects, the land, the equipment, and the labour had been arranged using the investors funds. He represented that the investors funds were being used to construct infrastructure, irrigation systems, and to pay startup and operating costs.

[22] Throughout 2020 to 2021, travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic prevented Mr. Pollesel from traveling to Uruguay to confirm Mr. Aguiar’s reports and representations to be true, which it has turned out to be not the case.

[23] In October 2020, Mr. Aguiar represented that one of the Uruguayan Companies, Ignapin SA, received its first payment of EUR 3.0 million from medicinal cannabis sales. Mr. Aguiar represented that Ignapin SA had sent two additional shipments and received payments in November and December 2020 for EUR 2.5 million and EUR 2.0 million. Mr. Aguiar produced various bank deposit receipts the purported to confirm the payments from cannabis sales. It appeared that the Investors were to achieve a significant return on their investments.

[24] In July 2021, Mr. Aguiar represented that the medical cannabis businesses in Uruguay had generated EUR 21.0 million in sales and the funds would be sent to Canada to provide the Investors a return on their investment. Mr. Aguiar disclosed a bank deposit receipt that showed that there was EUR 21.0 million deposited. Ms. Donan prepared TD Bank wire transfer remittance documents that purported to show that A.D. Group had initiated the transfer of funds to the Investors; however, the Investors never received the funds from A.D. Group’s TD Canada Trust account.

[25] Mr. Aguiar explained to the Plaintiffs and Investors that repatriating the profits of cannabis production back to Canada had been impaired due to U.S. banking system regulations that prevented the transmission of funds from cannabis businesses. Mr. Aguiar said that there was a solution to the problem. He suggested that Uruguayan government officials would allow an Organic Free Trade Zone (FTZ) to repatriate funds to Canada. Mr. Aguiar represented that the recommendation of the Uruguayan government was to set up an FTZ through one of the Uruguayan Companies, Andertown SA, and to only utilize new funding that did not derive from profits of cannabis sales. Mr. Aguiar said that additional funds were required from the Investors.

[26] Throughout August 2021, the Investors provided an additional approximately $2.9 million (U.S.D.) to A.D. Group’s TD Canada Trust account to establish the FTZ. Mr. Aguiar assured the Plaintiffs and the Investors that the creation of the FTZ would be the last step required to transfer substantial profits to the Investors from the Uruguayan investments.

[27] In July 2022, Mr. Aguiar told the Plaintiffs and Investors that the FTZ investment through the Uruguay company, Andertown SA, had generated such significant profits that funds could be transferred to them in Canada. He disclosed a bank account statement for Andertown SA that showed that the account had received a $90 million (USD) transfer. Mr. Aguiar said that the funds in the Andertown SA account could and would be used to provide a return of the Investors’ funds. In July 2022, Mr. Aguiar represented that he had processed a wire transaction from the Andertown SA account, in the amount of $39.0 million (USD) that was sent to the TD Canada Trust bank account of 267 Ontario. However, the transfer was never received by 267 Ontario.

[28] In August 2022, after it was apparent that the funds had not been received by 267 Ontario, Mr. Aguiar represented to the Plaintiffs that the reason for the delay involved the closure of certain bank accounts of the Uruguayan companies. He said that the Uruguayan government would no longer allow cannabis funds to be held in the state-owned bank, Banco Republica (where the accounts allegedly existed). Mr. Aguiar represented that the funds had been transferred to a Bank of America account based on an agreement between Uruguayan government and bank officials at Banco Republica and Bank of America.

[29] In November 2022, Mr. Aguiar represented that the funds to provide repayment to the Investors would be transferred to the Plaintiff 267 Ontario from the Bank of America account. He disclosed bank transaction records that purported to confirm that $70 million (USD) had been sent to 267 Ontario. However, as had happened before, the transfer was never received by 267 Ontario.

[30] In early December 2022, Mr. Pollesel contacted TD Canada Trust and inquired about the use of the account and Investors funds. He spoke to John Doris, District Vice-President, Commercial Banking at TD Canada Trust. Although Mr. Doris could not disclose information regarding the contents of the account or the account activities, based on Pollesel’s concerns, Mr. Doris referred Pollesel to a retired RCMP financial crimes investigator, Gordon Aristotle, now of Lions Gate Risk Management Group. The Plaintiffs began an investigation.

[31] In December 2022, Mr. Pollesel met with Sudbury Regional Police Det. Sean Bilodeau to file a complaint. In January 2023, Pollesel met with Det. Sergeant Ryan Welsh of the OPP to discuss the complaint filed with the Sudbury Regional Police. Mr. Pollesel has not received an update from police as to the status of the investigation.

[32] In early January 2023, Mr. Pollesel and Mr. Montgomery travelled to Uruguay. They discovered that many of Aguiar’s representations, including the requirement for and the use of the investment funds, were false. They discovered that Aguiar had not used the investment funds for the purposes of which they were advanced or had otherwise misappropriated and embezzled the Investors’ funds. They discovered that Mr. Aguiar was living a lavish lifestyle while in Uruguay. The Plaintiffs discovered that the underlying medical cannabis sales from the Artigas project, which Mr. Aguiar represented had generated EUR 28.5 million was fictitious. The Plaintiffs discovered that Aguiar and A.D. Group did not complete the transaction to acquire the Artigas land which was purportedly used to grow the medical cannabis to be sold. The Plaintiffs believe that Mr. Aguiar produced and provided fraudulent bank records to support his representation that the Uruguayan Companies had generated significant profits from cannabis sales. The Plaintiff discovered that Mr. Aguiar’s representation regarding the investment to acquire the Salto property, which was represented to have cost $1.5 million (USD) was purchased for significantly less.

[33] Mr. Aguiar had represented to the Plaintiffs and the Investors that the cost of construction of the drying facility was approximately $11.5 million (USD) and that the construction costs were paid in full. However, the Plaintiffs discovered that the construction costs were not paid in full, and several contractors that worked on the Salto drying facility remain unpaid. The Plaintiffs current information is that an estimated $2.0 million (USD) remains due and owing to contractors.

[34] The Plaintiffs discovered that despite Aguiar’s representation, the FTZ was never finalized. In total, the Investors provided specific purpose investment funds for the FTZ project of approximately $2.9 million (U.S.D.) Aside from minimum design, consulting and licensing expenditures, these funds have not been accounted for by Mr. Aguiar.

[35] When Mr. Pollesel and Mr. Montgomery returned to Ontario, they learned that the Ms. Donan and Aguiar’s adult children in Ontario were driving expensive vehicles, including a black GMC SUV, a white Audi Q5 SUV, a grey Lincoln Aviator SUV, a white Buick SUV, and an Audi R8 sportscar. The Aguiar’s own two properties in Bradford, Ontario.

[36] The Plaintiffs’ investigations to date reveal that the Aguiar family business, Optima Caulking Inc., may have closed sometime in 2022. Optima Caulking employed Ms. Donan, and Mr. Aguiar’s two sons (the Defendants Andree and Adrian). There are no known proceeds derived from the closing of Optima Caulking that justify the lifestyle spending of Mr. Aguiar, Mr. Donan and their two sons.

[37] The Plaintiffs discovered that in April 2020, Mr. Aguiar purchased an estate home with two adjacent lots worth each worth $300,000 (USD) located on a golf course in Punta del Este, Uruguay for $4.5 million. Mr. Aguiar has also acquired sports cars including a white Ferrari 458 and a green BMW M4 sports car. The Plaintiffs discovered that in July 2022, Ms. Donan and her adult children created a business, the defendant A.R.A. Group of Companies Inc. Mr. Aguiar and Donan also own a property in El Salvador. The Plaintiffs suspect that Mr. Aguiar and Ms. Donan’s lifestyle, both in Ontario and Uruguay, has been funded by the Investors’ funds.

[38] On January 26, 2023, surveillance confirmed that Ms. Donan resides in Bradford, Ontario, at a property owned solely by Mr. Aguiar. Ms. Donan was observed driving a new model Audi SUV, registered to A.D. Group.

[39] Recently, the Plaintiffs commenced urgent proceedings in Uruguay to take control of the Uruguayan Companies and to secure the businesses and any assets for the benefit of the Investors. The proceedings against Mr. Aguiar and his companies were for the appointment of an “Intervenor” to remove Mr. Aguiar and secure corporate assets. The Intervenor process in Uruguay is similar to the appointment of a Receiver under Ontario law. It is anticipated that the Intervenor will give notice to Mr. Aguiar when the Intervention is executed on January 30, 2023.

[40] On January 20, 2023, following an ex parte hearing in Uruguay, the Plaintiffs were granted the Intervention relief. The Intervention relief was executed on January 30, 2021.

[41] It is at present unknown if Mr. Aguiar has received notice of the Intervention in Uruguay The Plaintiffs believe that if any of the Investors’ funds or assets are in Ontario, there is a serious risk of dissipation once Mr. Aguiar becomes aware of Uruguayan proceedings.

D. Discussion and Analysis.

[42] Section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act[^2] provides the court with the jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunctions including Mareva injunctions. Section 101 states:

Injunctions and receivers

101 (1) In the Superior Court of Justice, an interlocutory injunction or mandatory Order may be granted or a receiver or receiver and manager may be appointed by an interlocutory Order, where it appears to a judge of the court to be just or convenient to do so.

Terms

(2) An Order under subsection (1) may include such terms as are considered just.

[43] Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,[^3] provides that an injunction may be obtained on motion, and rule 40.02 (1) provides that an interlocutory injunction may be granted on motion without notice for a period not exceeding ten days. Rule 40 states:

RULE 40 INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION OR MANDATORY ORDER HOW OBTAINED

40.01 An interlocutory injunction or mandatory Order under section 101 or 102 of the Courts of Justice Act may be obtained on motion to a judge by a party to a pending or intended proceeding.

WHERE MOTION MADE WITHOUT NOTICE

Maximum Duration

40.02 (1) An interlocutory injunction or mandatory Order may be granted on motion without notice for a period not exceeding ten days.

[44] A Mareva injunction is an injunctive order that restrains the defendant from dissipating assets or from conveying away his or her own property pending the court’s determination in the proceedings. A Mareva injunction is sometimes called a “freezing injunction” or a freezing order. A Mareva injunction is sometimes combined with a Norwich order, which is an equitable remedy and a form of discovery that strictly speaking is not injunctive relief.[^4]

[45] Under a Norwich order, a plaintiff may obtain discovery from a person including a person against whom there is no cause of action in order to identify a wrongdoer and to obtain information about wrongdoing so that the plaintiff may bring proceedings or at least consider whether to bring proceedings.[^5]

[46] For a Mareva injunction, the plaintiff must satisfy the requirements for an interlocutory injunction as set out in in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)[^6] and typically a plaintiff must establish: (1) a strong prima facie case; (2) irreparable harm if the remedy for the defendant’s misconduct were left to be granted at trial; (3) the balance of convenience favours granting an interlocutory injunction; (4) the defendant has assets in the jurisdiction; and (5) that there is a serious risk that the defendant will remove property or dissipate assets before judgment.[^7] Absent unusual circumstances, the plaintiff must provide the undertaking as to damages normally required for any interlocutory injunction.

[47] The risk of removal or dissipation of assets can be established by inference and the defendant’s prior fraudulent activities and improper conduct and the circumstances of the fraud itself including concealment, deception, evasion, and clandestine behaviour may support an inference that the defendant will remove or dispose of property.[^8]

[48] A Mareva injunction is an extraordinary remedy because as a general policy of civil procedure, a remedy that allows prejudgment execution against the defendant’s assets is not favoured, but where there is a strong case that the defendant has defrauded the plaintiff the law's reluctance to allow prejudgment execution yields to the more important goal of ensuring that the civil justice system provides a just and enforceable remedy against such serious misconduct.[^9]

[49] A strong prima facie case is one that will probably prevail at trial or is likely to succeed at trial.[^10] In the immediate case, the Plaintiffs have established a strong prima facie case of fraud. To defraud a person is to deprive a person dishonestly of something which is his or of something to which he is or would or might but for the perpetration of the fraud, be entitled.[^11] The elements of a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation are: (1) a false statement by the defendant; (2) the defendant knowing that the statement is false or being indifferent to its truth or falsity; (3) the defendant having an intent to deceive the plaintiff; (4) the false statement being material and the plaintiff having been induced to act; and, (5) the plaintiff suffering damages.[^12] In the immediate case, there is considerable evidence for each element of a fraud claim.

[50] In the immediate case, the Plaintiffs have also established the other elements for a Mareva injunction and for a Norwich Order.

[51] In the immediate case, insofar as a Mareva injunction is concerned, it has been established that there is irreparable harm if the remedy for the defendants’ misconduct were left to be granted at trial. The balance of convenience favours granting an interlocutory injunction. The defendants have assets in the jurisdiction. There is a serious risk that the defendants will remove property or dissipate assets before judgment. The Plaintiffs have provided an undertaking as to damages.

[52] Mareva injunctions may be coupled with ancillary disclosure orders to make the remedy meaningful and effective. It is often the case that a motion a Mareva injunction is made on incomplete information about the nature, extent, location and value of the assets and funds which the defendant may have, and to prevent injustice to the plaintiff ancillary orders may be made in order to require full disclosure of the nature, location and value of assets and funds and disclosure of the defendants’ dealings with them.[^13]

[53] Section 96 the Courts of Justice Act provides that the court “shall administer concurrently all rules of equity and the common law”, and in Ontario the equitable action for discovery co-exists with the procedural rights under the Rules of Civil Procedure.[^14] The requirements for a Norwich order are: (1) the plaintiff must have a bona fide claim or potential claim against a wrongdoer; (2) the defendant to the Norwich proceeding must have a connection to the wrong beyond being a witness to it; (3) the defendant to the Norwich proceeding must be the only practical source of the needed information; (4) the interests of the party seeking the disclosure must be balanced against the interests of the defendant to the proceeding, including his or her interest in privacy and confidentiality, and any public interest that would justify non-disclosure; and (5) the interests of justice must favour obtaining the information.[^15] The fundamental principle underlying the Norwich order is that the party against whom the order is sought has an equitable duty to assist the applicant in pursuing its rights.[^16]

[54] In the immediate case, insofar as a Norwich Order is concerned, it has been established that The Plaintiff have a bona fide claim against the Defendants and that TD Canada Trust has a connection to the wrong beyond being a witness to it. Obtaining information for TD Canada Trust is the only practical source of the needed information. The interests of the Plaintiffs in disclosure far over balances the interests of Mr. Aguiar and his co-defendants including their interest in privacy and confidentiality. The public interest justifies disclosure and the interests of justice favour obtaining the information.

E. Conclusion

[55] For the above reasons, the Mareva injunction, the Norwich Order and the ancillary relief shall be granted as requested.

[56] I am not seized of the matter. I set February 9, 2023 as the return date for the Defendants to attend via video hearing for the Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of the Order made on this motion without notice.

[57] I have signed the Order.

Perell, J.

Released: January 31, 2023

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00693397-0000

DATE: 20230131

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

1999269 ONTARIO LIMITED and 1999267 ONTARIO LIMITED

Plaintiffs

• and –

GONZALO RAUL GADEA AGUIAR a.k.a GONZALO RAUL AGUIAR GADEA, A.D. GROUP OF COMPANIES INC., ROXANA GUADALUPE MARROQUIN DONAN, ANDREE ALEJANDRO AGUIAR DONAN a.k.a ANDREE ALEJANDRO DONAN AGUIAR, ADRIAN AGUIAR DONAN a.k.a ADRIAN DONAN AGUIAR, A.R.A. GROUP OF COMPANIES INC., OPTIMA CAULKING INC., JOHN DOE, JANE DOE AND DOE CORPORATIONS

Defendants

REASONS FOR DECISION

PERELL J.

Released: January 31, 2023

[^1]: See also Wallace v. Pristine Developments, 2021 ONSC 2794; Woods v. Jahangiri, 2020 ONSC 7404. [^2]: R.S.O. 1990, c. 43. [^3]: R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. [^4]: GEA Group AG v. Ventra Group Co. (2009), 2009 ONCA 619, 96 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.). [^5]: GEA Group AG v. Ventra Group Co. (2009), 2009 ONCA 619, 96 O.R. (3d) 481; Isofoton S.A. v. Toronto Dominion Bank (2007), 2007 CanLII 14626 (ON SC), 85 O.R. (3d) 780 (S.C.J.); Norwich Pharmacal & Others v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] A.C. 133 (H.L.). [^6]: 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. [^7]: Woods v. Jahangiri, 2020 ONSC 7404; Ndrive v. Zhou, 2020 ONSC 4568; Crawford v. Standard Building Contractors Limited., 2020 ONSC 687SFC Litigation Trust (Trustee of) v. Chan, 2017 ONSC 1815 (Div Ct.); United States of America v. Yemec (2005), 2005 CanLII 8709 (ON SCDC), 75 O.R. (3d) 52 (C.A.); DeMenza v. Richardson Greenshields of Canada Ltd. (1989), 1989 CanLII 4138 (ON SC), 74 O.R. (2d) 172 (Div. Ct.); Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, 1985 CanLII 55 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 2; Chitel v. Rothbart (1982), 1982 CanLII 1956 (ON CA), 39 O.R. (2d) 513 (C.A.). [^8]: Riar v. Khudal, 2020 ONSC 6238; Electromart (Ontario) Inc v Fabianiak, 2016 ONSC 5266;Sibley & Associates LP v. Ross, 2011 ONSC 2951. [^9]: 2092280 Ontario Inc v. Voralto Group Inc, 2018 ONSC 2305(Div. Ct); SFC Litigation Trust (Trustee of) v. Chan, 2017 ONSC 1815 (Div Ct); Aetna Financial Services Ltd v. Feigelman, 1985 CanLII 55 (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 2. [^10]: Modry v. Alberta Health Services, 2015 ABCA 265. [^11]: Scott v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, [1974] 3 All E.R. 1032 at p. 1038 (H.L.). [^12]: Bruno Appliance and Furniture Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8; Parna v. G. & S. Properties Ltd. (1970), 1970 CanLII 25 (SCC), 15 D.L.R. (3d) 336 at p. 344 (S.C.C.); Derry v. Peek (1889), 14 App. Cas. 925 (H.L.). [^13]: Innovative Marketing Inc. v. D’Souza 2007 CarswellOnt 1131; Federal Bank of the Middle East v. Hadkinson et al, [2000] 2 All E.R. 395 (C.A.). [^14]: GEA Group AG v. Ventra Group Co. (2009), 2009 ONCA 619, 96 O.R. (3d) 481(C.A.); Straka v. Humber River Regional Hospital (2000), 2000 CanLII 16979 (ON CA), 51 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.). [^15]: Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, Inc. v. Trent University, 2017 ONSC 4562; Pavao v. Pavao Estate, 2017 ONSC 542; Johnston v. Ontario Provincial Police, [2014] O.J. No. 1538 (S.C.J.); 1654776 Ontario Ltd. v. Stewart, 2013 ONCA 184 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 225; Bergmanis v. Diamond, 2012 ONSC 5762; Tetefsky v. General Motors Corp., 2010 ONSC 1675, aff’d 2011 ONCA 246; GEA Group AG v. Ventra Group Co. (2009), 2009 ONCA 619, 96 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.); Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575, [2000] A.J. No. 993 (Q.B.). [^16]: Hudspeth v. Whatcott, 2017 ONSC 1708; Isofoton S.A. v. Toronto Dominion Bank (2007), 2007 CanLII 14626 (ON SC), 85 O.R. (3d) 780 (S.C.J.).