McConaghy v. Hetti Group Inc.
Darren McConaghy
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Frank Spizzirri

May McConaghy
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Frank Spizzirri

Andrea McConaghy
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Frank Spizzirri

Hetti Group Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Domenic Saverino

Sugi Financial Services Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Domenic Saverino

Jose Suguitan
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Domenic Saverino

Jordan Suguitan
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Domenic Saverino

Lasanta (Lance) Hettiarachichi
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Domenic Saverino

Gamini Roy Da Silva
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Domenic Saverino

Overview:

  • Plaintiffs (Darren, May, and Andrea McConaghy) sought summary judgment against corporate and individual defendants linked to a construction loan scheme involving three properties.
  • Defendants included Hetti Group Inc., Sugi Financial Services Inc., and individual stakeholders like Lance Hettiarachichi and Roy Da Silva.
  • The case was part of 13 related actions regarding misappropriated funds in a syndicated construction loan arrangement.

Key Legal Issues:

  1. Existence of Genuine Issues for Trial: The court determined there were none for the corporate defendants but identified limitations issues for the individual defendants.
  2. Limitation Period Expiry: The court ruled the plaintiffs' claim against Lance and Roy was barred by Ontario’s two-year limitation period.

Court Findings:

  • Corporate Defendants: Summary judgment granted for $300,000 plus 12% interest annually against Hetti Group Inc., Sugi Financial Services Inc., and Jose Suguitan.
  • Fraud Declaration: Damages caused by corporate defendants were declared fraudulent and survive bankruptcy.
  • Individual Defendants (Lance and Roy): Motion dismissed due to the limitation period expiring before they were added to the claim in 2024, even though evidence of misappropriation was available in 2018.

Disposition:

  • Plaintiffs succeeded against corporate defendants but failed to hold Lance and Roy liable due to procedural timing.
  • Costs submissions invited if parties cannot agree.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-18-00606743-0000
Corporate & commercial law
$ 300,000
Plaintiff