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
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
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
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has laid out a new formulation of the “fictitious or non-existing payee” defence under section 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act (BEA
Continue Reading Supreme Court of Canada Shifts the Risks of Cheque Fraud
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 Documents Prove Fraud in Summary Judgment Decision
Canada has formally repealed its exception for “facilitation payments” under its foreign anti-corruption legislation (the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act).
Canada’s anti-bribery law prohibits anyone from giving or offering a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind — directly or through intermediaries — to a foreign public official as consideration for an act or omission by the latter to obtain or retain a business advantage.
Continue Reading Canada Bans Facilitation Payments Under Foreign Anti-Corruption Law
Two recent decisions of the Ontario Superior Court demonstrate the willingness of Canadian judges to find fraud on the basis of material omissions in both civil and criminal cases. In Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Shtaif, 2017 ONCA 320, 135 O.R. (3d) 481 and R. v. Fontana, 2016 ONSC 707, omissions by the defendants were found to constitute fraudulent conduct.
Civil Fraud: Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Shtaif
In Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Shtaif, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the tort of deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation may:
involve not only an overt statement of fact, but also certain kinds of silence: the half-truth or representation that is practically false, not because of what is said, but because of what is left unsaid.
Continue Reading Fraud by Omission: Ontario Case Law Updates
In 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 When should a fraudulent conveyance action be brought?
As the Canadian government contemplates further measures to combat financial crime, there is an increasing debate over whether Canada should follow the US, UK or the proposed Australian model by introducing a deferred prosecution agreement
Continue Reading Should Canada follow the UK, US or Australian deferred prosecution model?
The decision in SFC Litigation Trust (Trustee of) v. Chan, 2017 ONSC 1815 represents a step toward a more flexible approach when our courts are asked to consider whether a Mareva injunction should be granted. In this case, the appellant, Mr. Chan, the former Chief Executive Officer of Sino-Forest Corporation (“SFC”), appealed an order confirming a Worldwide Mareva injunction that had been granted against him, ex parte.
SFC was a Canadian corporation and had an office in Ontario, a head office in Hong Kong, and assets predominately located in China. It carried out a sale process through the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. C-36 (the “CCAA”), which ultimately failed. SFC then applied under the CCAA for an order approving a plan of compromise and reorganization, which was subsequently sanctioned. A Litigation Trust was assigned the litigation rights of SFC.
Continue Reading Mareva Injunctions – Ontario Court of Appeal Signals a More Flexible Test for Granting Worldwide Mareva Injunctions