Photo of Ahmed Shafey

Ahmed Shafey practices commercial litigation, providing advice in the context of fraud/misrepresentation claims, contractual disputes, professional liability actions, shareholder disputes, government procurement litigation, international commercial arbitrations and bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings. Ahmed has been engaged in a number of civil fraud and asset recovery matters as well as complex business crime investigations, including in tracing preferential payments, investigating complex investment frauds and moving for emergency injunctive relief to preserve and protect assets in Canada and beyond.

In the summer of 2024, Baker McKenzie obtained a trial judgment in fraud in CHU De Québec-Université Laval v. Tree of Knowledge International Corp. This decision provides clarity on the application of the “recklessness” standard

Continue Reading 2024 Notable Cases (Part 3) – Civil Fraud and Personal Liability Established by Finding that a Corporate Officer’s Conduct was Reckless

The bankruptcy of Aiden Pleterski, the self-proclaimed ‘Crypto King’ began on August 9, 2022, with a court application brought by Baker McKenzie on behalf of a group of investors. This case garnered significant media attention

Continue Reading 2024 Notable Cases (Part 2) – Bankruptcy of the Crypto-King and Related Rulings

As we enter 2025, we look back on five important decisions that made the news in 2024. Here is the the first case.

On October 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released two decisions

Continue Reading 2024 Notable Cases (Part 1) – Supreme Court clarifies Corporate Attribution Doctrine

Mareva orders, also known as freezing orders, may be granted when there is a risk that a defendant might move its assets out of reach of the court’s jurisdiction. Mareva orders can freeze assets owned

Continue Reading Creditors seeking enforcement of claims to a Mareva defendant must come with clean hands

Background

In Li et al. v. Barber et al., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a motion by two “Freedom Convoy” organizers to release $200,000 of previously frozen funds needed to retain legal

Continue Reading Access Denied: Ontario Court Rejects “Freedom Convoy” Organizers’ Request to Access Frozen Funds for Legal Fees

In Amphenol Canada Corp v. Sundaram, 2020 ONSC 328 (“Amphenol Canada“), the Ontario Divisional Court confirmed that a prima facie showing of fraud and dissipation in the context of a Mareva injunction may have additional consequences for defendants, including presumed prejudice in terms of that defendant’s ability or inclination to satisfy future cost awards.
Continue Reading Impact of Mareva injunctions on alleged fraudsters

In Wescom Solutions Inc. v Minetto, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the test for wilful blindness has the same standard in criminal and civil proceedings, which means asking whether a defendant was in fact suspicious and chose to ignore those suspicious, rather than whether defendant objectively should have been suspicious.
Continue Reading Re-seller of fraudulent goods found wilfully blind by Court of Appeal