Law360 Canada ( October 11, 2024, 1:57 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellants from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal which affirmed in part a judgment of the Ontario Superior Court. Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. ("Golden Oaks") founded by Lacasse was a Ponzi scheme. The scheme eventually collapsed and both Golden Oaks and Lacasse went into receivership and made assignments in bankruptcy. The trustee sought to recover payments made. It advanced unjust enrichment claims as the successor in interest to Golden Oaks. The trial judge reached several conclusions including the rejection of the appellants’ argument that the trustee’s actions were statute-barred under the Limitations Act. She further held that Lacasse’s knowledge had to be attributed to Golden Oaks and refused to allow the appellants to invoke s. 97(3) of the BIA to set off the interest amounts they owed the estate against the principal they were owed. She also ordered the repayment of the sums received by Scott, a real estate agent who had become involved with Golden Oaks’ operations, on the basis that they were unlawful preferences under s. 95(1)(b) BIA. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusion of the trial judge to reject the limitations and set-off defences and with her ruling on the unlawful preference claims against Scott and allowed the trustee’s cross-appeal in part. However, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge should not have attributed Lacasse’s knowledge to Golden Oaks under the corporate attribution doctrine....