COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 55
[116] Hryniak denied defrauding the respondents. He contended that the Mauldin
group‟s funds were stolen by a third party and that he never asked Bruno to invest with
him and never received Bruno‟s funds.
[117] In 2008, the Mauldin group and Bruno moved for summary judgment against
Hryniak, Peebles and Cassels Brock. The motions were heard together. Eighteen
witnesses filed affidavits on the motions. Cross-examinations took three weeks. The
motion record consisted of 28 volumes of evidence. Oral argument – which took place in
2010 – took four days.
[118] Applying the amended Rule 20, the motion judge delivered a 58-page judgment.
He granted summary judgment against Hryniak. 8
He did not believe Hryniak‟s evidence
and concluded that Hryniak had defrauded both the Mauldin group and Bruno. However,
the motion judge dismissed the motions against Peebles and Cassels Brock. He concluded
that a trial was required to determine whether Peebles was guilty of fraud or had been
duped by Hryniak, and whether Peebles had any liability apart the claim for fraud.
[119] On this appeal, Hryniak makes three main submissions:
(1) The motion judge erred in holding that it was in the
interest of justice to grant summary judgment.
(2) The motion judge erred by failing to hold that each
action raised genuine issues requiring a trial.
8 The motion judge granted judgment in favour of the Mauldin group for U.S.$1,190,401.29. That amount
represents the initial U.S.$1.2 million less the small distribution in February 2002. The motion judge also granted
summary judgment in favour of Bruno for U.S.$1 million.