Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Daniel Reeve’s appeal from fraud and theft convictions arising from interconnected Ponzi schemes and rejected his expert-evidence arguments.
The Court found MMAC operated a Ponzi scheme, denied an adjournment request, and allowed the trustee’s Phase I clawback process for preferences and excess investor payments.
The Supreme Court held that the trustee’s recovery actions were not time-barred, rejected equitable set-off, and upheld illegality and preference findings.
The court refused to set aside a default judgment against Malcolm Stevenson, finding no prompt application, no good delay explanation, and no defence worthy of investigation.
Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal in part: the trial judge did not err in finding Scott and Golden Oaks were not dealing at arm’s length for s.95(1)(b); the court should exercise the Livent public‑interest discretion not to apply corporate attribution to impute Lacasse’s knowledge to the one‑person Golden Oaks, therefore the Trustee’s usurious interest claims were not time‑barred; the trial judge correctly applied s.97(3) and equitable set‑off was unavailable given defendants lacked clean hands; the trial judge erred in refusing recovery of commission payments on unjust…
Source excerpt
Certification was granted in a proposed class action alleging HSBC knew of a Ponzi scheme and had a duty to investigate, report, and warn after closing Tan’s accounts.
Court approved a class action settlement in a Ponzi-scheme fraud case, finding it fair and reasonable, binding on class members, and supported by counsel and the trustee.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a class action arising from an alleged investment fraud or Ponzi scheme and approved notice and litigation plan amendments.
The court held the action’s main issue concerned execution of a trust, so Rule 12-6(2)(e) required the trial to proceed without a jury.
Applying the Livent comparative liquidation deficit framework to the evidentiary record, including the unchallenged deconstruction and adjustments by PwC's expert and the legal evidence concerning the SIPA Settlement Agreement, the motion judge reasonably found no genuine issue of damages requiring a trial; the $1.03 billion net withdrawal and the limited nature of the SIPA judgments were properly treated as reducing any alleged loss and the motion judge's findings were not palpably and overridingly erroneous.
Source excerpt
Explore more
