Summary judgment of an action may only be granted when there is no genuine issue requiring a trial and this can be difficult to prove in fraud cases where credibility is often an important factor. In the recent Ontario Superior Court decision in MacNamara v. 2087850 Ontario Ltd. (Strathcona Construction), 2017 ONSC 499, Justice Akbarali granted summary judgment finding both fraud and grounds to pierce the corporate veil of a corporate defendant. This case demonstrates how liability for even the most serious causes of action can be established by way of summary judgment where a full evidentiary record allows the Court to find the necessary facts, apply the law, and determine that there is no genuine issue for trial.
Continue Reading

Squares threeIn 2014, we reported on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Indcondo Building Corporation v. Sloan (“Indcondo“), which strengthened the position of plaintiffs seeking to set aside fraudulent conveyances in Ontario. In the Indcondo case, Mr. Justice Penny analyzed the substantive test for establishing fraudulent conveyance and in particular the demonstration of whether a defendant had the requisite intent to defeat creditors or others. 
Continue Reading

In DBDC Spadina Ltd et al v Norma Walton et al, Justice Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court recently granted a motion for summary judgment on the basis that there was sufficient evidence to justify a finding of fraud. The decision reflects the guidance set out in the landmark Supreme Court Canada decision Hyrniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, which recognized that the adjudicative process can be fair and just without requiring the expense and delay of a trial.
Continue Reading

In a recent 2016 decision in Greenberg v. Nowack, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a contempt motion against a stubborn and non-compliant debtor in a judgment debtor examination gone awry. Although sympathetic to the Plaintiffs’ frustration at being unable to recover monies on their  judgement, the Court ruled that imprisoning the debtor would be harsh and ineffectual. Justice Perell made this observation about the contempt motion:
Continue Reading