its causes of action were transferred to the SFC Litigation Trust
(the “Litigation Trust”) constituted for the benefit of its creditors.
In exchange, SFC’s creditors released their claims for repayment
of debts owed to them by the company.
 In 2014, the respondent, as trustee of the Litigation Trust,
commenced this action alleging that the appellant had committed
fraud against, and breached his fiduciary duty to, SFC.
 After a 48-day trial, the trial judge found that the appellant
had directed a “massive fraud” in breach of his fiduciary duties to
SFC, causing SFC to misrepresent its assets and their value. This
enabled SFC to raise significant funds in the capital markets.
SFC would not have undertaken obligations of this magnitude to
lenders or shareholders, or entrusted the funds raised to the
appellant and his management team, but for the appellant’s
fraud. The trial judge found that the appellant’s conduct caused
a loss to SFC. The funds raised were either directed by the appellant into fictitious or over-valued lines of business which dealt with
third parties secretly related to and entities secretly controlled by
the appellant, or were largely consumed by the necessity of dealing
with the consequences of the discovery of the appellant’s fraud and
the collapse of SFC that followed. The trial judge awarded
damages equal to what he found to be SFC’s loss — $2,627,478 —
as well as punitive damages of $5 million Canadian.
 The appellant asks us to reverse the trial judgment, making
the following principal arguments:
(a) The respondent is only entitled to advance claims that were
transferred to the Litigation Trust under the Plan. Properly
interpreted, the Plan did not transfer the claims advanced in
this action to the Litigation Trust.
(b) The trial judge’s award of damages is flawed because he did
not conduct a proper causation analysis and awarded compensation for losses not of SFC, but of its stakeholders (its noteholders and shareholders). In doing so, he improperly exposed
the appellant to duplicate claims and created risks of double
(c) The respondent’s claim ought to have been rejected under
the doctrine of election. When SFC transferred the assets,
contracts and businesses of its subsidiaries as contemplated
by the Plan (by transferring its subsidiaries’ shares), there
was an election to treat them as valid. Yet the respondent’s
claim is premised on those same assets, contracts and businesses being fraudulent and invalid.