Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Default judgment for unjust enrichment against the corporate recipient of misappropriated funds, plus punitive damages to denounce the scheme

• Summary judgment against the individual controller who received and could not account for large transfers; no juristic reason established

• Reliance on bank records tracing funds from the plaintiff’s account through the defendant company to Ghanaian accounts tied to the individual and his company

• Civil fraud claim against the individual not determined on this motion due to credibility issues best suited for trial/summary trial

• Application of Moore v. Sweet for unjust enrichment and Hryniak v. Mauldin for summary judgment standards, with r. 20.04(2.1) fact-finding powers engaged

• Ancillary relief granted: tracing order and limited post-judgment Mareva; total recovery capped across defendants (excluding punitive) with interest awarded

Facts
The plaintiffs are related companies in the Ottawa snow removal and lawn care business owned by Jim McKenzie, with his daughter Saera McKenzie becoming CEO in December 2021. After the long-time bookkeeper died, Jim rehired his ex-wife, Ciara McHale, who was granted signing authority over the company’s CIBC account. Ciara became the victim of a “romance scam,” believing an online contact “Aiden Seaman” needed funds to release a box of gold from a purported German storage facility. After exhausting personal and family funds, she misappropriated company money, ultimately sending $2,801,150 through various accounts. The bulk went to Spotless Consultancy Inc., controlled by Yahya Hashiru, with funds later traced to Yahya’s personal accounts and to Best Coastline Limited in Ghana, where Yahya is an officer and director. Saera uncovered the losses on assuming the CEO role, and Mareva and related orders followed, revealing the flow of funds

Procedural posture
The plaintiffs moved for default judgment against Spotless (noted in default) and for summary judgment against Yahya (self-represented on the motion). The hearing occurred on May 15, 2025, with reasons released on June 9, 2025

Legal framework
The court assessed unjust enrichment under Moore v. Sweet: enrichment, corresponding deprivation, and the absence of a juristic reason. For summary judgment under r. 20 and Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court asked whether a fair and just determination could be made on the motion, using r. 20.04(2.1) powers where needed. The judge also considered when punitive damages are appropriate to punish and deter high-handed misconduct

Decision and reasoning
Against the corporate recipient
On the deemed admissions and supporting evidence, Spotless received $2,726,050 of the plaintiffs’ funds without any juristic reason: there was no contract, no donative intent, and no legitimate business purpose. Default judgment issued for that amount. Given the use of a corporate vehicle in a cross-border scam and the apparent dissipation of funds beyond the court’s jurisdiction, the court awarded $250,000 in punitive damages against Spotless to denounce and deter such conduct
Against the individual controller
The record showed transfers totaling $713,089 to Yahya’s personal accounts, which he could not adequately explain or trace. His account—that he merely facilitated a mining investment arranged by a Ghanaian acquaintance for a nominal fee—was unsupported by documents, inconsistent with the amounts received, and did not establish any juristic reason to retain the funds. The court granted summary judgment for $713,089 against Yahya on unjust enrichment. However, the court declined to make a civil fraud finding against Yahya on this motion, noting credibility questions better suited to a trial or summary trial; the plaintiffs elected to proceed only on unjust enrichment for the summary judgment motion

Remedies and ancillary orders
Judgment issued against Spotless for $2,726,050 plus pre- and post-judgment interest and $250,000 in punitive damages (with post-judgment interest on the punitive award). Judgment issued against Yahya for $713,089 plus pre- and post-judgment interest. The plaintiffs’ total compensatory recovery from Spotless and Yahya combined is capped at $2,726,050 (exclusive of punitive damages). The court also granted a tracing order and a limited post-judgment Mareva injunction to prevent dissipation pending enforcement. Costs are presumptively payable to the plaintiffs, with brief written submissions invited on ancillary orders and costs within set one-week timelines