COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 70
[165] In the light of the blatant incredulity of Hryniak‟s evidence, we are not persuaded
that we should interfere with the summary judgment granted in favour of the Mauldin
group. Accordingly, we dismiss Hryniak‟s appeal from that judgment.
(ii)
The Bruno action
[166] We take a different view of the summary judgment in the Bruno action. The
evidence against Hryniak in that action was not nearly as overwhelming and raises at
least two genuine issues requiring a trial.
[167] The first and most significant issue is whether Hryniak made a false statement that
induced Bruno to invest with him. Again, to prove Hryniak defrauded him, Bruno had to
establish that:
Hryniak knowingly made a false statement to Bruno
with the intent to deceive him;
the false statement induced Bruno to invest with
Hryniak; and
as a result of investing with Hryniak, Bruno suffered a
loss.
[168] Despite Hryniak‟s protestations to the contrary, we accept for the purpose of this
appeal that he knew Bruno had invested U.S.$1 million with Tropos, that he did not
invest this money, and that instead he used at least a portion of it for his own “corporate
requirements.” We are even prepared to accept that Hryniak knew about the meeting on