Summary Judgment Motion Publication: Sentinels of the Hryniak Culture Shift: Four Years On

John L. Davis, B.A. (Hons.), J.D.Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Civil Liability, Commercial Litigation, Fraud Recovery, Gilbertson Davis LLP News, Summary Judgment0 Comments

David Alderson, Senior Counsel-Commercial Litigation at Gilbertson Davis LLP, is the author of the chapter entitled Sentinels of the Hryniak Culture Shift: Four Years On, included in the Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2018 , (Ed. by the Honourable Justice Todd L. Archibald, published by Thomson Reuters Canada Limited) a copy of which can be accessed here, and which contains the following in the Overview: “Mr. Alderson has done a masterful job in reviewing the post-Hryniak judgment landscape. He canvasses whether or not our courts have embraced the advocated Hryniak culture shift in civil litigation through the simplification of pre-trial procedures and the principle of proportionality. Before embarking upon a summary judgment motion, all counsel should carefully read Mr. Alderson’s paper because it provides superb guidance concerning the prospects of success not only before the motions judge but on appellate review. Mr. Alderson’s paper is a comprehensive tour de force for all advocates.” –  The Hon. Justice Todd Archibald, Ontario Superior Court of … Read More

The Supreme Court of Canada On Defence Against the Tort of Conversion (Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust)

Janice Perri, B.A. (Summa Cum Laude)Appeals, Appellate Advocacy, Business Law, Business Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Civil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Law, Commercial Litigation, Employee Fraud, Finance Litigation, Financial Services | Investment, Fraud, Fraud Recovery, Fraudulent Schemes, Investment | Financial Services0 Comments

In Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust, Teva Canada Ltd. (“Teva”), a pharmaceutical company, “was the victim of a fraudulent cheque scheme implemented by one of its employees”, (para 1). Teva claimed the collecting banks were liable for the tort of conversion. Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust provides insight into the Bills of Exchange Act‘s (“BEA”) section 20(5) defence to the tort of conversion, by clarifying the approach used to determining whether a payee is “fictitious or non-existing”. In the event that a payee is deemed fictitious or non-existing within the meaning of section 20(5) of the BEA, the bill may be treated as payable to the bearer, and thus can be negotiated by simple “delivery” to the bank meaning endorsement is not required, and the defence will succeed (para 5). Justice Abella, writing for the majority, outlined the two-step framework a bank must satisfy to demonstrate that a payee is fictitious or … Read More

Gilbertson Davis LLP Enforces Liquidated Damages Clause in Settlement Agreement by Summary Judgment

Andrew Ottaway, B.A. (Hons.), LL.B.Business Litigation, Business Torts | Economic Torts, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Contract Disputes, Fraud, Fraud Recovery, Fraudulent Schemes, Shareholder Disputes, Summary Judgment0 Comments

In Haas v. Viscardi, 2018 ONSC 2883 (CanLII) the plaintiff settled a claim of $200,000 based on fraudulent misrepresentation with three defendants. The settlement agreement provided for various payments by the defendants on specified dates.  The settlement agreement required Viscardi to make payments of $30,000 in three installments. If Viscardi failed to make the payments on the dates provided, the settlement agreement provided that Viscardi would consent to judgment for $60,000 (the “Consent Judgment Clause”). Viscardi made one payment of $10,000, but failed to make the remaining two payments, in breach of the settlement agreement.  He then refused to consent to judgment. The plaintiff commenced a claim to enforce the settlement agreement, and brought a motion for summary judgment. The motion judge rejected Viscardi’s argument that the Consent Judgment Clause was an unenforceable penalty clause.  The judge considered the test for whether a liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty: … Read More

Insurance Coverage For Cyber Crime: The Brick v. Chubb

Robert Kalanda, B.A. (Hons.), J.D.Cyber Fraud, Cyber Risks, Cyber Security, Fraud, Fraud Recovery, Insurance, Internet Fraud, Summary Judgment0 Comments

In the recent case of The Brick v. Chubb Insurance, the Alberta Court of Queens Bench held that the plaintiff’s commercial crime policy did not cover the money lost by the plaintiff as a result of a social engineering fraud. The plaintiff had been contacted by unknown persons pretending to be one of the plaintiff’s service providers, and requested banking information from their accounts payable department, which ultimately led to the plaintiff changing their internal records and sending of payments to the fraudsters’ own account instead of their service provider. The plaintiff sought coverage for the losses, and the insurer denied coverage. The court noted that the policy only applied to fund transfers made “without the insured’s knowledge or consent”. The plaintiff argued that they did not consent, since their actions were induced by the fraudulent correspondence. The insurer argued that the policy did not require consent to be “informed” or otherwise … Read More

Toronto Lawyers for Victims of Investment Fraud: When Investing in a Toronto Business Goes Bad

David Alderson, LL.B, LL.M (Commercial and Corporate), Lawyer and ArbitratorAppeals, Appellate Advocacy, Broker and Agent Claims, Business Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial Arbitration, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Fraud, Fraud Recovery, Injunction & Specific Performance, Investment Fraud, Summary Judgment0 Comments

A bad investment may not be the result of market fluctuations. A false representation inducing and leading to an investment loss may be actionable at law. Often there is a promised  high-yield on an investment in a company, project or property.  Sometimes a loss occurs from a scheme where there is no intention by those entrusted with an investment to make the promised purchase or transfer. In Ontario, civil lawsuits for the victims of investment fraud have often been framed as claims for deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy,  breach of contract, unjust enrichment and restitution. Increasingly though, plaintiffs in lawsuits simply claim damages for losses arising directly from the tort of civil fraud. The leading case on civil fraud in Canada is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2014 in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, and in that case civil fraud is defined this way “… the tort of … Read More