COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 72
evidence that Peebles acted as Hryniak‟s agent for the purpose of inducing Bruno to
invest. Nor could we make that finding as the motion judge left Peebles‟ credibility to be
determined at trial.
[172] Also, we do not know what statements persuaded Bruno to invest. He may have
invested because of something Peebles said; or, he may have invested because of
something Cranston said. Indeed Bruno‟s own affidavit filed on his motion for summary
judgment strongly suggests that Cranston‟s representations induced him to invest. Yet
Cranston, as we have said, gave no evidence on the motion. For these reasons, whether
Hryniak, through Peebles, made a false statement that induced Bruno to invest is a
genuine issue requiring a trial.
[173] There is a second genuine issue requiring a trial: whether part of Bruno‟s
investment was misappropriated by Hryniak or by Cranston. Again, despite Hryniak‟s
denials, we accept for the purpose of this appeal that he knowingly took Bruno‟s money
and used at least U.S.$450,000 of it for his own purposes. The Cassels Brock trust
ledgers and Hryniak‟s own instructions to Peebles‟ assistant overwhelmingly show this to
be so. However, the Cassels Brock trust ledgers also show that in late June 2002,
Hryniak redeposited U.S.$550,000 into the Cassels Brock trust account for Tropos, with
the result that the law firm then held more than U.S.$1 million in trust for Hryniak‟s
company.