In Thrive Capital Management Ltd. v. Noble 1324, 2021 ONCA 722, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed a Superior Court’s judgment against Noble 1324 Inc. for contempt of court for the failure to disclose their assets and account for money paid in respect of real estate investments. The Superior Court ordered two alleged fraudsters to repay at least $9 million to investors as a sentence for being found in contempt of court, notwithstanding that the trial on the merits had not been heard. In allowing the appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal offered important guidance on strategic considerations and remedies when a party is dealing with a party who refuses to comply with court orders.
Continue Reading Judgment is not a Sanction for Contempt: Ontario Court of Appeal Offers Guidance on the Enforcement of Orders in Fraud Proceedings
Glenn Gibson
If you have any questions regarding posts by Ms. Gibson, please contact Mr. Michael Nowina at michael.nowina@bakermckenzie.com.
Ignorance of Fraud is No Defence: Employer Vicariously Liable for Rogue Employee
In an unreported judgment Pallotta v. Cengarle, Court file CV-16-56337 released on February 27, 2020, Faieta J. found real estate lawyer Licio Cengarle vicariously liable for his clerk’s mortgage fraud scheme as well as for breach of trust. This case is a cautionary tale for professionals and employers about the need for internal controls.
Continue Reading Ignorance of Fraud is No Defence: Employer Vicariously Liable for Rogue Employee
Understanding a Creditor’s Duty to Investigate: Recent Guidance from the Ontario Superior Court in Anisman v. Drabinsky, 2020 ONSC 1197
In the recent decision Anisman v. Drabinsky, 2020 ONSC 1197 Justice Morgan voided a transfer of a $2.625 million Toronto home for the nominal sum of $2 by Garth Drabinsky to his wife as a fraudulent conveyance as against Drabinsky’s former lawyer and other creditors. This summary judgment decision provides important guidance for creditors on how to approach issues relating to discoverability and limitation periods in the context of real property that may have been fraudulently conveyed.
Continue Reading Understanding a Creditor’s Duty to Investigate: Recent Guidance from the Ontario Superior Court in Anisman v. Drabinsky, 2020 ONSC 1197
Refrain is the Name of the Game: Supreme Court rules on Breach of Trust
On May 14, 2019, in Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corp. v. DBDC Spadina Ltd., 2019 SCC 30 the Supreme Court of Canada granted Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corporation’s appeal and unanimously adopted Justice van Rensburg’s dissenting reasons as their own. In reversing the earlier decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has provided guidance on when a party will be found to have participated in a breach of trust.
Continue Reading Refrain is the Name of the Game: Supreme Court rules on Breach of Trust
Supreme Court to Rule on Conflicting Rights of Investors in Fraudulent Schemes
On November 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corporation’s (“DeJong”) application for leave to appeal from the decision in DBDC Spadina Ltd. v. Walton, 2018 ONCA 60. By granting leave, Canada’s highest court will weigh in on the liability of “victims” of fraud as against one another.
Continue Reading Supreme Court to Rule on Conflicting Rights of Investors in Fraudulent Schemes
Fraudulent Conveyance Claim flounders on procedural shores
In Esfahani v. Samimi, 2018 ONCA 516 the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that a plaintiff pursuing a fraudulent conveyance or preference must recognize that the legal landscapes changes with a bankruptcy and that the…
Continue Reading Fraudulent Conveyance Claim flounders on procedural shores
When Should a Defendant Bring a Motion for Summary Judgment in Fraud Proceedings?
This is our third and final post on the complex fraud carried out by Norma and Ronald Walton, and the Ontario Court of Appeal decisions arising from their scheme. In our earlier posts, we focused…
Continue Reading When Should a Defendant Bring a Motion for Summary Judgment in Fraud Proceedings?
Constructive Trust as a Remedy for Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Court of Appeal Clarifies Test for Granting Proprietary Remedies
This is our second of three posts on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in DBDC Spadina Ltd. v. Walton 2018 ONCA 60 arising out of a complex fraud scheme perpetrated by Norma and…
Continue Reading Constructive Trust as a Remedy for Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Court of Appeal Clarifies Test for Granting Proprietary Remedies
Stranger Danger: When Companies associated with a Fraudster should be Liable for the Fraudster’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty
The decision in DBDC Spadina Ltd. v. Walton, 2018 ONCA 60 provides insight on when corporations that are de facto under control of a fraudster can be held liable for claims of knowing assistance…
Continue Reading Stranger Danger: When Companies associated with a Fraudster should be Liable for the Fraudster’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Double Jeopardy Argument fails for the Magic Lady
Dubbed the ‘Magic Lady’ by the media for perpetrating a $100 million Ponzi scheme, Rashida Samji faced administrative proceeding brought by the BC Securities Commission (“Commission”) as well as criminal charges. The Commission found in…
Continue Reading Double Jeopardy Argument fails for the Magic Lady