The appellants are among the defendants in several
actions in which the respondent, as trustee in bankruptcy of
the promoters of an alleged Ponzi scheme, is seeking to recover
moneys allegedly paid out as part of the scheme.
 According to the facts as pleaded, the respondent, Doyle
Salewski Inc. (“DSI”), is a trustee in bankruptcy acting in its
capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Golden Oaks Inc. and Jean
Claude Lacasse, and was appointed as such on July 26, 2013.
 In its statements of claim, issued in July 2015, DSI alleges
that, in 2010 or early 2011, Golden Oaks began a real estate
“rent-to-own” program under which individuals could rent dwellings with an option to purchase. However, DSI claims that, following investigation, it learned that Golden Oaks was engaged
predominately in the business of selling promissory notes to
investors and that this activity generated over 96 per cent of its
revenue. According to DSI, Golden Oaks was never profitable
and the promissory notes it and Lacasse issued offered interest
rates of up to 66,981 per cent on an annualized basis. DSI also
claims that there was a referral scheme in place under which
referral commissions were paid to various parties who referred
investors to Golden Oaks.
 In its action against the appellants, Monique Lalonde and
Paul Lalonde (collectively “the Lalondes”), DSI alleges that the
Lalondes entered into usurious promissory notes with Golden
Oaks under which they loaned money to Golden Oaks at usurious rates of interest and that the Lalondes knew or ought to
have known that Golden Oaks was operating at a massive loss
and could not withstand payment of the usurious rates of interest. DSI states that the interest paid to the Lalondes came
from investments by other investors and not Golden Oaks’ business operations. DSI claims that the usurious interest paid by
Golden Oaks is “misappropriated monies of stakeholders” which
should be returned to DSI, representing the interests of all
stakeholders. DSI relies on s. 347 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C.
1985, c. C-46 and claims the return of usurious interest based on
the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
 In its action against the appellant Lorne Scott, DSI alleges
that Scott is a licensed real estate agent and that he received
commissions from Golden Oaks for referring investors to Golden
Oaks. DSI claims that the commissions are unlawful and contrary
to the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 because Scott is not
licensed to sell promissory notes, or receive remuneration for their
sale. DSI claims that the commissions paid by Golden Oaks