Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Spotless Consultancy Inc. was found liable for fraud involving a romance scam scheme, resulting in a $2.7 million judgment and punitive damages.

• Yahya Hashiru was held liable for unjust enrichment but not fraud, based on funds received and admitted transfers.

• The court imposed substantial indemnity costs against Spotless due to its fraudulent conduct.

• Costs against Mr. Hashiru were awarded on a lower scale, reflecting the narrower unjust enrichment finding.

• A post-judgment Mareva injunction was granted for 9 months to prevent asset dissipation by the defendants.

• Tracing orders were issued for funds sent to two Ghanaian entities linked to Mr. Hashiru.

Facts and outcome of the case

The plaintiffs—Capital SLC Inc., 2593820 Ontario Inc., and EMC3 Technologies Inc.—brought an action against Spotless Consultancy Inc., Ciara McHale, and Yahya Dikeni Hashiru. The dispute arose from an alleged fraud involving a romance scam, in which substantial sums were misappropriated and funneled through various accounts. While fraud was the central allegation, it was ultimately only proven against Spotless Consultancy Inc.

Spotless was found to have orchestrated the fraudulent scheme and was held liable for damages totaling $2,726,050, with an additional $250,000 in punitive damages. The court found the fraudulent conduct to be egregious, justifying both the compensatory and punitive awards. A substantial indemnity cost order of $100,000 was also made against Spotless, consistent with the seriousness of the fraudulent conduct and the complexity of the proceedings.

Yahya Hashiru, a self-represented defendant, was found liable on a different basis. Although originally accused of fraud, the plaintiffs elected not to pursue that claim to summary trial. The court found him liable for unjust enrichment in the amount of $713,089. The funds had flowed into accounts under his control, and during cross-examination, he admitted that some of these funds were sent to two Ghanaian entities—Best Coastlines Limited and Jadon Shatta Entertainment. As a result, the court issued tracing orders in respect of these entities.

Costs against Mr. Hashiru were assessed at $60,000, a lesser amount than against Spotless, reflecting the more straightforward nature of the unjust enrichment claim and the lower damages awarded. The court emphasized proportionality in this determination.

Additionally, a post-judgment Mareva injunction was issued for a period of nine months to aid in execution and prevent the potential dissipation of assets. The injunction applied to both defendants, including Mr. Hashiru, even though the fraud claim was not pursued against him. The court noted that there remained significant uncertainty about the location of the assets and the actions taken with the funds under his control.

In conclusion, the plaintiffs were successful in obtaining significant judgments against both defendants, as well as post-judgment enforcement remedies to preserve the ability to collect on the judgments.