COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 56
(3) The motion judge erred in his application of the rule in
Browne v. Dunn and thus deprived Hryniak of the
opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. 9
[120] We say at the outset that we see no merit in the third ground of appeal. Hryniak
knew the case against him and was aware of the allegations against him made by both the
Mauldin group and Bruno. He had ample opportunity to respond to those allegations, and
indeed endeavoured to do so both in his lengthy affidavits and in cross-examinations on
those affidavits. The balance of these reasons, therefore, will only address the first two
grounds of appeal.
2. Facts
(1) The Mauldin Group Action
(i)
The investment
[121] The critical meeting that led to the Mauldin group‟s investment occurred on June
19, 2001. Mauldin, Hryniak, Peebles and Cranston attended. 10 No party has
contemporaneous notes of what was said at the meeting, and recollections vary. All
parties agree, however, that during the meeting Hryniak explained that he had an
investment company called Tropos Capital and that he wanted to raise at least U.S.$10
million to invest through a joint venture called the Tropos Joint Venture.
9 The rule in Browne v. Dunn requires a party to give notice to a witness whose evidence he intends to impeach.
10 As noted earlier, Cranston was not sued in either action. Also, he did not give evidence on the motions.