COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 69
[162] Other than the so-called “test trade”, Hryniak never made an investment with the
Mauldin group‟s money. Therefore, to us, the veracity of his contention that he had a
legitimate trading program turns on whether one could give any credence to his claim that
Pribble stole the Mauldin group‟s funds. We think the motion judge was entitled to reject
Hryniak‟s claim of misappropriation.
[163] It defies credulity that faced with a theft of approximately U.S.$10 million,
Hryniak would not immediately report the theft to the police, ask his lawyer for
assistance, or at least make some effort to recover the funds. Yet on the record before the
motion judge he did nothing other than send a self-serving letter to the Canada Revenue
Agency and a very brief fax to a purported FBI agent whom he knew, some 15 months
after the theft occurred. Even having done that, Hryniak took no steps to follow up with
either the Canada Revenue Agency or the FBI agent about the whereabouts of the money
or the supposed thief.
[164] On all the evidence presented on the motion, including the examinations of
Hryniak, Hryniak‟s claim that Pribble misappropriated the Mauldin group investment
rings hollow. The incredulity of his evidence strongly supports the motion judge‟s
finding that Hryniak never had or intended to have a legitimate trading program in place
and yet he falsely told Fred Mauldin that he did in order to persuade the Mauldin group to
invest with him.