Media Room & Marketing Information
With over 35 leading legal professionals practicing in 10 different areas of the law, Ross & McBride LLP is a one stop resource centre for intelligent and insightful legal commentary.
Aside from skill and success in the courtroom, our lawyers have experience on television, radio and in print, and would be pleased to provide you with a legal perspective on any issues.
Is Your Deadline Fast Approaching?
To ensure that you are quickly linked to the appropriate source,
please contact our Marketing Director:
Natalie Garofalo
| Direct Dial: | (905) 572-5826 |
| E-Mail: | ngarofalo@rossmcbride.com |
| vCard: | Download vCard |
ILSG Wins At Court Of Appeal: Judgment For Texas-Based Client
Monday, February 9, 2009
On May 23, 2007 Jon-David Giacomelli and Chris MacLeod, of Ross & McBride LLP’s International Legal Services Group (ILSG), won a hard fought trial victory on behalf of the firm’s Dallas-based client. Jon and Chris successfully convinced the court that the prominent defendant was liable on a number of grounds.
On December 8, 2008, the Court of Appeal was asked to overturn the Trial Judge’s decision awarding the Plaintiff over $300,000 in damages and costs.
The Appellate Court agreed with the Trial Court’s decision in finding the Appellant liable for fraud.
The basis of the Appellant’s liability was his participation in a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by a Defendant that was “missing in action” and who claimed to be the Appellant’s agent, one Mr. Cook.
The Appellant, a prominent Canadian businessman, participated in a situation where his name, his company’s name, his funds and his actions lent an air of legitimacy to the scheme.
The Court of Appeal stated as follows:
“The Trial Judge observed that a sophisticated and astute investor like the Appellant would appreciate the only possible value of the “show of money” transaction would be to allow someone like Cook to use the Appellant’s name and that of his company and the fact they had $10 Million in the bank to support any investments he solicited. The Trial Judge stated “If [the appellant] did not know what Cook was telling people, that is because he did not want to know.”
The Court of Appeal concluded that the Trial Judge’s inference of facts including the conclusion, that the Appellant was willfully blind to the fraudulent scheme and his role in it, were logically grounded in the evidence. The Court of Appeal saw “no error in this conclusion”.
Case Citation:
John Eagle Imports, L.L.P. v. Deluce, 2008 ONCA 836 (CanLII), [2008] O.J. No. 5024 (C.A.)