Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ford Lawsuit Statement of Claim

    Uploaded by

    Toronto Star
    764K views22 pages
    The statement of claim from Renata Ford's lawsuit against Doug Ford, filed Friday, June 1, 2018 in the Superior Court of Justice.

    Original Title

    Ford lawsuit statement of claim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The statement of claim from Renata Ford's lawsuit against Doug Ford, filed Friday, June 1, 2018 in the Superior Court of Justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    764K views22 pages

    Ford Lawsuit Statement of Claim

    Uploaded by

    Toronto Star
    The statement of claim from Renata Ford's lawsuit against Doug Ford, filed Friday, June 1, 2018 in the Superior Court of Justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 22
    tn ae urt File No.N* du dosslr du groffe: V1 Pes Court File No.N* du dossier du groffe: CV-18-00598018-0000, 2B (Court Fle No, a, $ “aha yee Soe owrario ‘nina ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE RENATA FORD, STEPHANIE FORD by her litigation guardian RENATA FORD, and DOUGLAS FORD by his Mitigation guardian RENATA FORD Praintits and DOUGLAS ROBERT FORD, in his capacity as estate trustee of, ‘the Eatato of ROBERT BRUCE FORD, deceased, and in his. capacity ae estate trustee of tho Estato of DOUGLAS BRUCE FORD, deceased, and in hie personal capacity, RANDAL DOUGLAS FORD, In his capacity as estate trustee ofthe Estate ‘of DOUGLAS BRUCE FORD, decoasod), and in his personal ‘capacity, DECO ADHESIVE PRODUCTS (1985) LIMITED, DECO LABELS & TAGS LTD. and DOUG FORD HOLDINGS INC. Detencants ‘STATEMENT OF CLAIM. TO THE DEFENDANT ‘A LEGAL P3OCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plant. “The elaim made agelnst you is set out inthe flowing pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer sting for you must prepare @ statement of defence in Form 18A prescrived by the Rules of Ci Brocedure, sare fan the paints lawyer or, where the plant does not have a lanyer, serve iton the pain, and fle , wih proof of servic, in this court ofce, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS ‘ater this statement af olaim is served on you, Ifyou are served in Oar, Ir you are served in anether province or terrtory of Canada or inthe United States of “America, the perce for serving and fling your statement of defence is forty days. Ifyou are ‘served outside Canada and the Urited States of Amica, the period is sy days. Instead of serving and fling @ statement of defence, you may serve and fle a notice of inten to defend in Form 188 prescribed by the Rules of Cl Procedure, Ths wil ene you to ten more days within which to serve ard fil you statement of defence. crencly ied Odin par wie Schemas Gtunaoye Court File No(N* du dosslr du grote: CV-18-00588018-0000, Page? IF YOU FAL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN [AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTIGE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL {AIO MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE. TAKE NOTICE: THIS ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED if t has not been sei down for iial of terminated by any means withn five years after the action was commenced unless oherwise ordered bythe cou. Date: __ sued by Tecal Regier Addroes of 303 University Avenue ‘courtaffea: 10" Floor Toronto, ON MG 18 To. DOUGLAS ROBERT FORD, inhis capacity os estate tustoe ofthe Estate of ROBERT BRUCE FORD, deceesed 8 Teterhall Rose Etobicote ON MBL 203, AND TO: DOUGLAS ROBERT FORD, in his capacily as estate rusten ofthe Estate of DOUGLAS BRUCE FORD, deceased 6 Totterall Road Etobicoke ON MOL 203, AND TO: DOUGLAS ROBERT FORD, in his personal capacity 6 Totteshall Rose Etobicnce ON MOL 263 [AND TO: RANDAL DOUGLAS FORD, inlis capacity as estate trustes ofthe Estate of DOUGLAS BRUCE FORD, decease 415 Weston Wood Road Etobiccke ON MEP 1R7 AND TO: RANDAL DOUGLAS FORD, inhis personal capacity 45 Weston Wood Road Etebiccke ON MEP 1R7 ‘AND TO: DECO ADHESIVE PRODUCTS (1886) LIMITED 28 Greensboro Drive RRexdal, ON MW 1E1 ciety nied /Deiag pare Stove ctknaore Court File NoJN" du dossier du grefe: CV-18-00590018.0000, Pages AND TO: DECO LABELS & TAGS LTD. 28 Greansbore Drive Rexdale, ON MOW 121 AND TO: DOUG FORD HOLDINGS INC. 28 Grooneboro Dive Rexdale, ON MOW 1E1 AND TO: OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN'S LAWYER ‘Ministry ofthe Attorney Genoral 393 Unversity Avenue TTeronfo ON MSG ES ceeancaly ied Depart thane: 1-201 COUR FlleNON" du dossler du greffe: CV-10-00599016.0000 Poges cua 1. The plains claim: (@) a decaration that Douglas Robert Ford (‘Doug Fore”) isin breach of trust in his capadty as estate trusloe of the Estate of Robert Bruce Ford, deceased, (Rob's Estate”), ard in his cepacty as estate tustee ofthe Estate of Douglas Bruce Ford, deceased (‘Doug Sr's Estate") (©) adecaraton that Randal Douglas Ford (Randy Ford’ iin breach of rutin his capacity a estate ustae of Doug S's Estate; (©) a dedaration that Doug Ford and Randy Ford, as directors and officers of Deco ‘dove Products (1886) Limited (‘Deco Toronto’), Deco Labels & Tags Ltd. (¢Deco Chicago"), Doug Ford Heldings Inc, and ther aflated botios corporate (collezvely, the "Deco Companies"), have conducted the business and affairs ofthese corporations and exerosed their powers as directors in a manner which Is oppressive, unfairy predic to, and which urfatyesregards the interests of the paints (©) 2 dediaration thatthe Deco Companies, Doug Ford and Randy Ford conspired togetner to effect and knowingly assisted in breaches of tut, and are in knowing receot of tust property; (e) orders removing Doug Ford and Randy Ford as estate trustees of Doug Sr's Estal, and appointing a replacement estate trusts; (an exer requiring Doug Ford to pass the accounts of Rob's Estate ectreatynied/Osint parol scegue-Ghunaot8 Cour Fila NoJN" du dossier du greff: CV-18-00588018-0000 Pages (6) anerder forthe accounting and dsgorgament ofall monies averted from Dot ‘Sr's Estate and paid to or forthe benefit of the Deco Companies, Doug Fore, Randy Ford, an! to others who are not henefilris of Doug S's Estate; (h)_anrdertracing the manias referred ton paragraph (a) above; (amazes for breach of bust, negligence, conspiracy, and breach of common law land atutory duty, in favour of the plaintif Stephanie Ford against Doug Ford ‘and Randy Ford, in an amount as yet urascertained but presently estimated fo be $5,000,000; (damages for breach of bust, negligence, conspiracy, and breach of commen law ‘and statutory duty, in favour of the plantif Douglas Ford against Doug Ford and Rendy Ford in an amount as yet unascertained but presently estimated to be $5,0¢0,000, (k) damages for breach of tus, negigence, conspiracy, and breach of commen law and statutory duty, in favour ofthe pleintif Renata Ford against Doug Ford and Raney Ford in an amount as yet unascertained but presently estimated to be 5,000,000; (0). puritve damages in the amount of $250,000 against each defendant; (rm) suchorders as to this Honourable Court seem just under s. 2413) of the Canada Business Corporations Ac, to temedy the oppressive misconduct of Doug Ford ‘and Randy Ford and fuly compensating the paints for their losses; on Dane perl ehevraws Crnaott Court File NOJN* du dosslar du groffe: CV-18-00586018-0000 Page (m) prejudgment and postjudgment interest pursuant tothe Courts of Justice Act R8.0, 1990, «43, in respect of all the damages and compensatory amounts, ‘ordered tobe pad bythe defendants; fe; and (6) costs ofthis action ona complete indemiy bs (p) _svch further and ether relief as counsel may atvise nto this Honourable Court ‘may 06m just. ‘THE PARTIES 2. The plain Renata Ford is the widow of the late Robert Bruce Ford ("Rob Ford’), and the mother of the plantis Stephanie Ford and Douglas Ford. The plainlifs reside together in the Ct of Toronto, 3. The plait Stephanie Ford ls the daughter ofthe late Reb Ford, and the granddaughter othe late Douglas Bruce Ford, She Is a minor child who resides with her mother in Toronto, 4 The plant Douglas Ford isthe son of the late Rob Ford, and the grandson ofthe late Douglas Bruce Ford He ls 2 minor child who resides wih his mother in Toronto, 5. The defendant Doug Ford is a poltician and parttime businessman who resides in “Toronto. At all material mes Doug Ford was the estate tustee of Rob's Este, and one ofthe estate trustees of D2ug Ss Estate, a8 well as an officer and dlractor of the Deco Companies. 6. The defendant Randy Ford is a businessman who resides in Tororto. At ll material times Randy Ford wes one ofthe etate trustees of Doug Sts Estat, 2¢ wall as an officer and rector ofthe Deca Companies. recreate Obi pa oe craie Otsn-2010 Court File NoJN" du dossier du grffe: CV-12-00590018-0000 Page? 7. The defenderts Dace Toronto, Deco Chicago and Doug Ford Holdings Inc. are ‘companies incorportted under the laus of Canade, wth registered head ofces in Toronto, ‘THE ESTATES 8. Douglas Bruce Ford ("Doug Sr") ded on September 22, 2008, Doug Sis Estate is ‘governed by hs twolast Wl, ing a Primary Will and a Secondary Wil, both made on August 24, 2008, 9. The daendants Doug Ford and Randy Ford, together wat thelr mother Ruth Diane Ford, ate the executors ard the trustees ofboth the Primary Estate and Secondary Estate of Doug Sr. ‘The Primary Estate consists of property he owned at the me of his death, except for speciic clatees of propery described Inhis Secondary Wil (a) allaricies of personal, domestic, household and garden use or omement (euing al! consumable slores, all automobies, boats and other \ehiges and all accessories thereto) that | may own at the time of my eat (©) any shares or cher secuttos issued by Doug Ford Holdings Inc CDFHM, a corporation Incorporated under the laws of Canada, which | may o¥m atthe time of my death; (0) any shares or ther secures that | may own atthe time of my death of ary ather corporation, incorporated under the lans of Canada, & province thereof or any other luedeion or which ie traatee a6 such under such lawsand which does not ofr ite secures tothe public; and ()_alarounts owing to me at the time of my death by a corporation referred to inparagraph (2) orc) of his sub-clause 1.1 I, after the dst ofthia my Wil, OFHI changes its name ox corporate structure or transfers fe seaate fo one or more corporations of the type described in paragraph :) ofthis sub dause 11, all rerences inthis my Wil or any Codic Frereto to DFHI shat extend to and include a reference tothe new name of tat Corporation oto the restructured corperallon or Such ransferee corporation or ‘corporations as the ease may be" croatia Dee bw we Prone obknstid Court File NoJN* du dosslor du grffe; CV-12-c0586018.0000 Page 8 10, The estate rustees of the Secondary Estate of Doug Sr. were authorized by his ‘Secondery Wil to reorganize the capital of Daco Toronto 60 a6 fo change the existing common share capital nto a class of prferent or special share capital having a redemption andlor retraction pice equal othe fair market value ofthe common share capital atthe time of such change and to issue two new common shares to each ef Doug Ford and Randy Ford, and one new common share to Reb Ford, Such reorganization occured, bul wth each of Doug Ford and Randy Ford receiving 400 commen shares, and Rab Ford receiving 200 common shares ‘1. Doug Ford end Randy Ford, as estate tstees of the Secondary Estate, were dected by the Secondary Wilt hold the resicve ofthe Secondary Estate remaining after the payment ‘of debs, in trust for Ruth Dane Ferd during her Metime. The Ife intrest of Ruth Diane Ford in the asses of the Secondary Estate were to.be managed and ulized by Doug Ford and Randy Ford, a6 esate trustees, solely “Yor the comfortable maintenance and beneft of Ruth Diane Ford during her We. 42, The Secondary Wil of Doug Sx. further provides a follows: “On the date of death of the survivor of my wife and me (the "Division Date’), | DIRECT MY Trustees to dhide the residue of my estate es t shall exst on the Division Date int three (8) equal shares fo payor transfer one 1) such equal share to each of my sons, RANDAL DOUGLAS FORD, DOUGLAS ROBERT FORD and ROBERT BRUCE FORD, he is alve on the Division Date for his ‘un use abioiuely. PROVIDED, however, that i any one of my sons RANDAL DOUGLAS FORD, DOUGLAS ROBERT FORD end ROBERT BRUCE FORD is natalie onthe Divison Date, but leaves issue who are then alive, my Twvstees Shall sat ast the share fo which he would have been ted if he were alve on the Dhision Date and shall vide the sai share in equal parts por stipes among Fis issue ‘tho are then lve, and the resulting parts shall be deat within ‘accordance with te provisions of sub-clause 8.4 below. 43. Doug Ford and Raney Ford, as estate trustees ofthe Primary Estate of Doug Sr, were to hold the residue ofthe Primary Estate in trust for Ruth Diane Ford during ha life on the terms. Upon the death of Ruth Diane Ford, the reste of the Primary Estate was also to be ecrakcaly ies sind prvi écranueCt-an2018 COUR Fle NaN du dossier du grote: CV-18-008890T8-0000 ‘Staterentot Cia Page vided into three (2! equal shares and paid to Doug Ford, Randy Ford and Rob Ford. In te ‘event one of them predeceased their mother, then ther issue would receive ther share of the residue in the Primary Estale as beneficiaries of 2 trust, 14. Rob Ford died on March 22, 2016. The Rob Ford Estate is governed by the two last Wil of Rob Ford, being a Primary Wil and Secondary Wil, both made on or about October 2, 2014. Rob Fores Prinary Wil was made in respect ofall assets and property owned atthe time of his death, excluding cert classes of property described inthe Secondary Wil (a) _allartces of personal, domestic, household and garden use or omament {including consumable stores and all aft), other than any auxornobles, boats and other vehicles or accessories thereto thal | may own al the tie of myceath; () any svares or other secures that | may avm a the time of my death of ‘any corporation, incorporated under the laws of Canada, 8. province thereot or any other jurscicton of which fs ested as such under such laws and which does not offer iis secures tothe publ; (©) all amounts hed in trust for me and all amounts owing to me atthe time ‘of mydeath by 2 corporation refered to in sub-clause 2 1() hereof, and (6) all assets and property, wherever situate, the beneficial but not lg ‘ounership of which eld by me.” 15. Doug Ford is the estate tusteo of both Rob Ford's Primary Estate and his Secondary Estate 48. Doug Ford, a estate trustee of Reb Fords Primary Estate and Secondary Estate, was ected to divide the residue of his estate inte three (3) equal shares payable to Renata Ford, are held in trust for Douglas Ford and Stophanie Ford, The common share interest in Deco “Toronto owned by Feb Ford atthe time of his death formed part of his Secondary Estate 47. Doug Ford epproached Renata Ford after Rob Fords death, He suggested to her that would be in her best interest to settle his estate matters between them, and without the ‘Cour File No.N* du dossier du grote: CV-18-00588018-0000, Page 10 Involvement of any lawyers, When Renata Ford questioned the wisdom of that suggestion Doug Ford stated to har “Let's get ra ofthe lawyers and settle this on our ov, They wil only steal your money” Youre going to ose everything in your savings: 18, Renata Fore cid not fellow Doug Fords suggestion. Shortly after thelr exchanga, however, Doug Fore again approached her, and suggested that she sel to him Rob Fors 200 comman shares of Deco Toronto. Doug Ford eevsed Renata Ford that owning the shares \Wouid just be stress for her, Renata Ford decline that proposal 19, The distbaton of property in Reb Ferd's Primary Estate and Secondary Estate contemplated by his Primary Will and Secendary Wil has not been effected by the defendant ‘Doug Ford, wo cortnues torlan contol aver the assets of Rob's Estate, The accounts of the estate have net beer possed by Doug Ford, andthe plant Renata Ford has not been provided ‘ith fl information and documentation conceming the contents or status of Rob's Estate, 20. In that rege, by agreement made on October 10, 2016, between Renata Ford and Rob's Estate, 28 represented by Doug Ford as estate trusiee, Renata Ford and Doug Ford ‘agreed, itera, a8 follows: "WHEREAS Renata end Robert Ford, hereinafter referred to as “Rob were spouses of one another, [AND WHEREAS Rob lft a Primary Will dated October 10, 2014 Primary Wi) in which he ramed Doug as his Estate Trustee, [AND WHEREAS Rob left a Secondary Wil dated October 2, 2014 (Secondary ‘Win whieh he named Doug as his Estate Trustee: [AND WHEREAS Renata ls one ofthe beneficiaries under Rob's Pmary Will and Secondary Wi AND WHEREAS Doug has not yet been able to provide to Renala the complete Tat of asses ofthe estate ecroveyiowed Odin parse eciactam2o%e Court Fi NouNe du dossier du gaffe: CV-18.00599016-0000 Paget [AND WHEREAS If Renata [sto make an election under Section 5 of the Family Law Act CFLA') she must do so within the me prescribed; [AND WHEREAS Renata cannot make an informed decison without information fn the nature and value ofthe assets cf Rots estate, IN CONSIDERATION ofthe mutual rights and obligations that the partes have to each other, the parties agree as folows: 1. Dougwit provide complete information on the assets of Rob's estate and theirvalue a8 o0n as possible ana shall ake all necessary stops to have third pales provide such information. 2. Inthe event that Renata does nat fle the Election under Sertion 5 ofthe FLA within the time prescribed, Doug wil consent to ery application to ‘extend the time fr fing 3, If Renata does flo an election, Deug will consent to an application to ‘utara the election, I Renata go chooses, onca she has received the fullinermation regarcing the assets of Robs estate. 4. Doug wil further consent to late Issuance and sence ofthe application for equalzation, once Renata has been provided with ful information ‘about Robs assets” 21. Renata Ford did not recalve complete information trom Doug Ford concerning the content and status of Rob's Estate in the period folowing the agreement referred to in paragraph 20 above 22. Belwoon February 27, 2017 and March 1, 2017, the defendants Doug Ford arc Randy Ford effected a fuer reorganization af the Deco Companies. In partular, Doug Ford, in his capacity 28 esate trustee of Rods Eslate, entered Into and completed an agreement wth Randy Ford to sell 200 common shaces af Deco Toronto, which had been owned by Rob Ford porto his death and thereafter became a part of his Secondary Estate, to Randy Ford for a rominal purchase pice of $1. The Deco Companies ware reorganized into a new structure by subich Randy Ford became the 100% ounar of Deco Toronto, Doug Ford became the 100% ‘mer of Deco Chicago, Doug Sts Estate became the 100% ouner of Doug Ford Holdings no. ‘subject to Ruth Diane Ford's fe interest under Doug S's Secondary Estate, and Rob's Estate eros Ob parole rani Ohm-0i0 Court File NoJN" du dossier du grffe; CV-18:00598018-0000 Page 12 and its beneficiaries had ne continuing interest in Deco Teronta and Deco Chicago, whether by ‘way of common shareholdings or at residual beneliiies of Doug Sr's Estate and Rob's Estate NEGLIGENT MISWANAGEMENT OF THE DECO BUSINESSES AND BREACHES OF ‘TRUST BY THE DEFENDANTS 23, The plaintifs eventually obtained some information about the contents and status of Robs Estate, and the transfer of Rob Fox's commen shares in Deco Torerdo by Doug Ford to Randy Ford. The pints wee provided witha tid paty valuation of the conmon shares of ‘Deco Adhesive Products (1985) Limited, which opined that Rob Fors common shareholdings In that corporation had a for market value ef zero atthe tie of ther transfer. Subsequent, ‘some futher disclosures were made by the defendais to the plains n connection with the financial status andthe business and sats ofthe Deco Companies, and these were alarming 24, When Doug Sr. was ave, and In operational control ofthe Deco Comparies, they were exaremely successful, generating profs, and permiting him to amas Significant invostment portfolo, The market value of Deco Toronto at the time of his death was in excess of ‘510 milion, and the Investment pertfolo amassed during his life had # market value at tho time ‘of is death of betwean $15 millon and $20 milon 25. ier the death of Doug Sr, the responsibilty forthe management and drection ofthe ‘Deco Comparies was assume by Doug Ford and Randy Ford, During the perod of tne when the defendants wate officers and directors ofthe Deco Companies and in complete control of their operations, bsinesses and afar, they have eo negligently and impropety mismanaged them as to destroy ther value. In partculr ncreccaty sates Deiat parwie Susie Chntoit Court Fle NoJN* du dossier du grote: CV-18-00588018.0000 O) co} © © © Page 13 “The franca statements of Deco Toren record tha it experience losses: )_inficat year 200 of $396,376; (i infseal year 201% of $1,117 485 (i lnfsca year 2012 of $425,961; (6) lnfscal year 2013 of $487,996; (0) infisca yar 2018 of $2,164,577; and (ud) fn facal year 2017 of $408,508; “The fanclal statements of Deco Chicago record that it experienced losses in {iscalyear 2016 of $595 257; ‘After tne death of Doug Sr, Doug Ford and Randy Ford arranged for and received very significant compensation fom the Deco Companies. That comgensation included extravagant salary, bonus, travel and automobie allowances and other benefits, which was paid regardless of the fnancl perfarmance of those businesses: Doug Ford and Randy Ford did not agree on a business plan for the management of tha Deco Companies, and never took reasonable steps to lmlement on Neither Doug Ford nor Randy Ford have the education and business abilty to justly their employment 28 senior offees of Deco Toronto and Deco Chicago. Nevertheless, they fled to retain competent and independent management to iret ates sine polar t8ckn2018_GOURLFle NOJN du dossier du gre: CV-16-00589018-0000 ‘Staementor iam Page operate the businesses afer thelr father's death, or to retain appropriate business advisors to assist them (1) Doug Ford commited the Deco Companies to a series of ikadvised acquisitions of businesses and assets inthe United States, Including in New Jersey, Chicago and Cho, al of which ended in financial losses for the Deco Companies; (a) Doug Ford, in his capacity as a director and senior officer of the Deco Companies believe that Randy Ford was an incompetent manager who was not ‘qualifed tobe a senior executive, Nevertheless, Doug Ford continued fo support nis brsther in his postion as a diector and senior offcer ofthe Deco Companies, ‘and moreover lef much ofthe operational responsbites to Rendy Ford during his pltical career, Aer decldng to devote himself primary to politics end other Interests, Doug Ford nevertheless maintained his postion as en officer and recto of the Deco Companies, and arranged to continue to receive very ‘exravagant compensation, notwithstanding that the bushesses were losing money, (hy Randy Ford and Doug Ferd coud not agree on strategies, policies and decisions in respect of the business and atfars of the Deco Companies. Their finercisl statenents sometimes remained in unapproved, craft form for successive fiscal periods, because the defendants did net approve them: (The defencants conducted themselves negigenty as offcers and directors of Deve Toronto and Deco Chicago, and thelr lack of attention tothe needs ofthe operating businesses destroyed the value of those corporations as going cence Ding pare ein Ot-in20%8 Court Fla NoJN" du dossier du gree: CV-18-00899018-0000 Pago 18 () The defendants grossly overcempensated themselves at the expanse of the Deco businesses and thei sharaholdere and stakeholders, and gave no thought, te whether oF net thelr continued employment and levels of compensation were reaecnable or appropriate inthe circumstances; (&) The dlendants improperly aranged for trends and family members to be employed by the Deco Companies, In positions which were unnecessary oF for Ut they were not quale () The defendants negigenty falls to oporat the businesses of Deco Toronto and Deco Chicago hh a manner which maintained costs and expenses at a reasenable level, commensurate with the volume of sales revenue ((n) The defendants negligent fale to operate the businesses of Deco Toronto and Deco Chicago in a manner which reasonably could be expected to generete suffcent revenue te continue 2 going concems; (0) The defendants negligently mistreated and unreasonably dismissed employees ‘who proposed Improvements on how the businesses of Deco Toronto and Deco Chicago could be operated or returned to profitably; (0) The defendants negligently overpaid management compensation nd sales commissions; (©) The defendants negigenty filed to retain and emoloy qualified and competent sales and marketing personnel ctereccly estes OsiWe prvi sce Gtkn08 Court Fle No/N® du doesior ugroffe: CV-18-00500048-0000, Page 18 (@) The cefendants improperly caused the businesses cf Deco Toronto and Deco Chicago to pay for personal expenses of Doug Ford and Randy Ford, and of thelr friends; and (i) The defendants negigenty caused Deco Toronto and Deco Chicago to invest in rmachnery and equipment without nani jstifieton or proper res ch, 26. Doug Ford and Randy Ford misused their postions as estate trastees of Doug Sts Estate inorder to maintain the solvency of Deco Toronto and Deco Chicago, and for their own bonefit Without cortruing infusions of fund, those businesses risked being unable fo meet their financial obligations curing most ical years from March 1, 2010, up to the present. The defendants improperly, and in breach af trust, aranged for Infusions of funds ftom Doug S's Estate through intr al, Doug Ford Halsings Ine. on repeated occasions dung that prod In Corder to suppart the fale operations of Deco Toronto and Deco Chicago. 27 The defendants knew, of must be taken to have known at all mato tenes, thal such Infusions of funds flom Doug Sr's Estate were not vable or prudent investments which coud reasonably be expeed o eam any pelt, and would nt remedy the serous problems wth the Deco Companies’ businesses. While some advances fo Daco Toronto and Deco Chicago were cescribed as loans, the defendants knew that they coud net be repaid and did no intend to

    You might also like