COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 67
[156] Having reviewed the extensive evidentiary record, we conclude that it firmly
supports the motion judge‟s determination that Hryniak committed the tort of civil fraud
against the Mauldin group. Hryniak‟s defence to this action simply has no credibility.
However, we are not prepared to uphold the summary judgment against him in the Bruno
action because, as we shall explain, the motion judge did not address an important
element of the legal test for civil fraud, nor is it clear that Hryniak received the benefit of
all of Bruno‟s funds.
(2) Did the motion judge err by failing to hold that each action raised
genuine issues requiring a trial?
(i)
The Mauldin group action
[157] To prove civil fraud against Hryniak, the Mauldin group had to show on a balance
of probabilities that:
Hryniak knowingly made a false statement to Fred
Mauldin with the intent to deceive him;
the false statement induced the Mauldin group to
invest with Hryniak; and
as a result of investing with Hryniak, the Mauldin
group suffered a loss: see Derry v. Peek (1889), 14
App. Cas. 337 (H.L.); Gregory v. Jolley (2001), 54
O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C.
refused, [2001] S.C.C.A. No. 460.
[158] Unquestionably, the Mauldin group was induced to invest with Hryniak because of
what Hryniak said to Fred Mauldin at the meeting at Cassels Brock on June 19, 2001.