Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Claims of civil fraud, breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation relating to investment funds advanced by the plaintiff.

• Plaintiff sought a Mareva injunction to prevent dissipation of assets before judgment could be obtained.

• The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud only against Danny Risteski, not against Mara Risteski or Donco Investments Ltd.

• Inconsistent explanations, missing documentation, and significant asset transfers raised credibility concerns.

• Claims of knowing assistance and knowing receipt were not established against the other defendants.

• No final damages or costs were awarded; costs on the motion were reserved to trial.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff, Slave Paunovski, brought an action against Danny Risteski, Mara Risteski, Donco Investments Ltd., and John Doe, alleging that he was induced to invest a total of $359,492.90 based on false representations made by Danny Risteski. The investments, made in 2015 and 2021, were described as risk-free and promised substantial returns, but the plaintiff received no return and claimed the funds were not actually invested as represented. Some funds were transferred to a third party, Aleksandr Ninosevic, in Europe.

The claims against Danny Risteski included fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Against Mara Risteski and Donco Investments Ltd., the plaintiff alleged knowing assistance, knowing receipt, and conspiracy to misappropriate or convert his funds. The defendants admitted that funds were advanced for investment outside Canada but denied involvement by Mara Risteski and Donco.

Policy terms and relevant clauses

The decision discusses the legal test for granting a Mareva injunction, which requires a strong prima facie case, assets in the jurisdiction, and a serious risk of dissipation of assets before judgment. The court found that the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case of civil fraud against Danny Risteski, but not against Mara Risteski or Donco Investments Ltd. The court also found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, and the balance of convenience favored granting the order.

Procedural history and evidence

An interim Mareva injunction was initially granted against the Risteskis and later amended to allow access to funds for living expenses and legal fees. The court reviewed affidavits, cross-examinations, and documentary evidence, finding significant credibility issues with Danny Risteski’s explanations regarding the investments and transfers. The court noted that relevant bank statements and wire transfer records had not been produced. Evidence of dissipation included the sale of real property, high-interest loans, and large transfers to Mr. Ninosevic after the commencement of the action.

Court’s order and outcome

The court granted the interlocutory Mareva injunction against Danny Risteski only, finding a real risk that he would dissipate his assets if not restrained. The motion was dismissed as it related to Mara Risteski and Donco Investments Ltd., as the plaintiff did not establish a strong prima facie case against them. The Mareva injunction applies to assets jointly held by the Risteskis, with exceptions for ordinary living expenses and legal fees. Costs on the motion were reserved to trial, with directions for written submissions if the plaintiff seeks costs.

Ruling and overall outcome

The successful party on the motion for interlocutory Mareva injunction is the plaintiff, Slave Paunovski, but only as against Danny Risteski. No final monetary award, costs, or damages have been granted or ordered as of this decision. The amount claimed by the plaintiff is $359,492.90, but the court has not made any order for payment of this amount at this stage. Costs for the motion are reserved to trial, and no specific amount has been determined.