Photo of Michael Nowina

Michael Nowina’s litigation practice focuses on a broad range of commercial disputes including advising on the recovery from fraudulent investment schemes, mortgage fraud and credit fraud. Michael’s fraud-related and investigations experience includes representing victims of a Canada-wide investment fraud and ultimately securing recovery of a majority of the proceeds from the fraud, advising numerous creditors in proceedings commenced to recover fraudulent conveyances and preferential payments in multi-jurisdictional litigation, and representing financial institutions in identity fraud cases and in proceedings to recover funds from fraudulent borrowers. Michael also frequently advises clients on insolvency matters involving fraud.

In Caroti v. Vuletic, 2026 ONCA 614, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified an important point of trust law: a resulting trust does not require fraud, wrongdoing, or unjust enrichment. Instead, it can…

Continue Reading Settlement Is Not Surrendering: The Ontario Court of Appeal Protects Unpaid Settling Parties’ Equitable Claims

On July 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada provided clarity regarding the treatment of administrative monetary penalties and disgorgement orders resulting from securities violations in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission).

Thalbinder Singh…

Continue Reading 2024 Notable Cases (Part 5) – Supreme Court Clarifies Bankruptcy Treatment of Securities Penalties and Disgorgement Orders

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