COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 68
And unquestionably, the Mauldin group lost virtually all of its investment. Thus, the only
question requiring serious consideration is whether the motion judge erred in finding that
the statements Hryniak made at the meeting were knowingly false and were made with
intent to deceive Fred Mauldin.
[159] We are satisfied that the extensive motion record supports the motion judge‟s
finding on this question. At root, the question turns on whether Hryniak had a legitimate
trading program that went awry when Pribble stole his money, or whether his program
was a sham from the outset.
[160] At the meeting on June 19, 2001, Hryniak told Fred Mauldin that the group‟s
investment was secure and would be used to engage in basis trading. In numerous
conversations after the meeting, Hryniak assured Mauldin and his colleague, Dan Myers,
that their investment was safe and secure. In other words, Hryniak portrayed to Mauldin
and the Mauldin group a legitimate, credible and secure investment opportunity.
[161] The Mauldin group argued and the motion judge concluded that Hryniak‟s socalled
trading program was a sham. The motion judge found that Hryniak‟s statements at
the meeting were false, that he never intended to and never did legitimately invest the
Mauldin group‟s money, that he orchestrated a “test trade” to dissuade the group from
demanding the return of its investment, and that his claim that Pribble stole the money
was “utter nonsense.”