Canadian Fraud Law

Commentary, News, & Updates

Subscribe
Visit Blog
By: Baker McKenzie

Blog Authors

Ahmed Shafey
Arlan Gates
Brendan O'Grady
Ben Sakamoto
Baker McKenzie
Christopher Burkett
Cherrine Chow
David Gadsden
George Avraam
Glenn Gibson
Henry Garfield
John Pirie
Jennifer Bernardo
Kamleh Nicola
Matthew Latella
Michael Nowina
Mark Ellis
Peter MacKay
Sarah Petersen
Stephanie Vaccari
Yana Ermak

Latest from Canadian Fraud Law

feature-basemark-v3
On May 14, 2019, in Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corp. v. DBDC Spadina Ltd., 2019 SCC 30 the Supreme Court of Canada granted Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corporation’s appeal and unanimously adopted Justice van Rensburg’s dissenting reasons as their own. In reversing the earlier decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has provided guidance on when a party will be found to have participated in a breach of trust.…
feature-basemark-v1
Lawyers must act with care and uphold their professional obligations when making referrals. The Supreme Court of Canada recently addressed the professional liability of a lawyer who advised his client to purchase specific offshore investments from an advisor where that advisor turned out to be a fraudster. In Salomon v Matte‑Thompson, 2019 SCC 14, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal holding the lawyer liable for his client’s investment…
feature-basemark-v2
Surprisingly, evidently not. Briefly the facts in Plate v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc., 2019 ONCA 196: an Executive in the role of Vice President Global Strategic Customers was terminated for just cause grounded in a decades-long defrauding of the company and its benefits provider in conspiracy with the latter’s consultant, to the extent of over $20,000,000, over a million of which resulted to the Executive personally. His argument that he was a bystander incidentally…
feature-basemark-v3
When a plaintiff obtains a judgment from the court, that party is normally precluded from starting another lawsuit seeking the same judgment debt from the defendant. However, in Royal Bank of Canada v Kim, 2019 ONSC 798, Justice Broad of the Ontario Superior Court made an exception because the bank had discovered evidence of fraud after it obtained summary judgment against the defendant. The bank sought to pursue a second action for a judgment…
DPA
Event Details:  Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 12:30pm – 1:30pm (EST) To RSVP, please click here.  Dial-in details will be provided after signing up for the event. Following our DPA roundtable in June and the recent focus on DPAs in the media related to the SNC-Lavalin corporate criminal prosecution, we are pleased to offer a primer and answer your questions via teleconference. Please register and dial-in to gain important insights on: How the Canadian DPA system…
In McGoey (Re), 2019 ONSC 80, Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found trusts over two properties held by a bankrupt were void as shams. In his decision, Justice Penny noted that had he not found the trusts to be sham trusts, he would still have set them aside as fraudulent conveyances, making us ask: “what is the difference between a sham trust and a fraudulent conveyance?” A sham trust occurs…
feature-basemark-v1
On November 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corporation’s (“DeJong”) application for leave to appeal from the decision in DBDC Spadina Ltd. v. Walton, 2018 ONCA 60. By granting leave, Canada’s highest court will weigh in on the liability of “victims” of fraud as against one another.…
feature-basemark-v1
Piercing the corporate veil remains a difficult feat in Ontario. Recently, in Cornerstone Properties v Southside Construction, Justice Hockin of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to pierce the corporate veil to hold a corporation liable for a costs award against its subsidiary. This decision reaffirms that courts will only pierce the veil where a corporation is being abused to the point where it is not functioning as a bona fide corporate entity,…