Facts: This case involves a Ponzi scheme operated by Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc., controlled by Joseph Lacasse, its sole officer and shareholder. Lacasse fraudulently lured investors with high-interest promissory notes. The scheme collapsed in 2013, and the company went bankrupt. The trustee in bankruptcy, Doyle Salewski Inc., pursued actions to recover funds paid out as interest and commissions under loan and referral agreements.

Key Issues:

• Statute of Limitations: The trustee’s actions were initiated in 2015, more than two years after the payments. The question was whether the claims were barred under the Limitations Act, 2002. The court had to decide if Lacasse's knowledge of payments should be attributed to the company and if the trustee’s actions were timely.
• Corporate Attribution Doctrine: The court explored whether Lacasse’s knowledge of the fraudulent payments should be attributed to the company. This was important because attributing Lacasse’s knowledge would affect when the limitation period began.
• Unjust Enrichment: The trustee argued that investors who received payments were unjustly enriched since the interest rates were illegal.
• Set-Off: Investors sought to offset the amounts they owed the company against the loans they had given.
• Referral Agreements: Investors claimed that referral commissions they received under agreements with Golden Oaks were lawful.

Rulings:

• Limitations Defence: The court rejected the argument that the claims were statute-barred, finding that legal proceedings were not "appropriate" until the trustee was appointed and the Ponzi scheme uncovered. Corporate attribution was applied with caution to avoid injustice.
• Equitable Set-Off: Investors were denied the defense of set-off because they did not act with "clean hands" in the Ponzi scheme.
• Referral Agreements: The court found that the agreements were illegal and rejected the argument that investors had a juristic reason to keep the commissions.

Outcome: The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, allowing the trustee to recover payments from investors. Exact amount for monetary award was not specified.