[2] These motions all arise from orders made by Dunphy J. based on findings by His Honour that the plaintiff had proven a strong prima facie case against the defendants for fraud among other causes of action. In effect, the defendants fraudulently pretended to operate businesses providing therapy to insured accident victims. Under the defendants’ scheme, insured “patients” were induced by the defendants to submit claims to Manulife for reimbursement for services that were never provided to them and for which they had never paid. The defendants provided the necessary documentary back-up claiming to evidence the services provided and purportedly paid for by the patients. The patients split the proceeds with the defendants.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc5169/2015onsc5169.html