Albert Pelletier

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement regarding alleged securities misrepresentations by Colt Resources, Inc. The court approved the $950,000 settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the statutory liability limits under the Securities Act.

The court also approved the Plan of Allocation, the notice plan, a $5,000 honorarium for each representative plaintiff due to their exceptional efforts in initiating the claim, and class counsel fees of $300,000 plus disbursements.

The plaintiff's counsel brought a motion to discontinue the proposed class action against Canada Goose Holdings Inc. and to be removed as counsel of record.

The representative plaintiff had ceased providing instructions and could not be contacted, and efforts to find a replacement representative plaintiff were unsuccessful.

The court granted the motion, finding it appropriate to discontinue the action and remove counsel, with the discontinuance taking effect on July 1, 2021, after adequate notice to class members.

The applicant sought to enforce a Letter of Request issued by a United States District Court for documentary discovery and depositions of the respondent, a non-party in the U.S. litigation.

The respondent objected to the scope of documentary discovery and the length of the depositions.

The court granted the application, finding the applicant met the requirements for enforcing the Letter of Request, and ordered the respondent to produce the requested documents and attend two days of depositions.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $3,500 in costs.

The plaintiff sought approval of a settlement and class counsel fees in a securities class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations by the defendant regarding a cannabis cultivation project.

The court found the settlement, which exhausted available insurance and included a $1,000,000 contribution from the defendant, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the plan of allocation, a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, and class counsel fees of $1,650,000, representing 30% of the settlement amount.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8(1) of the Securities Act (OSA) to bring a claim for secondary market misrepresentation against the defendant.

The claim alleged that the defendant's November 29, 2018 Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) misrepresented material facts regarding a 220,000 square foot construction project.

The defendant issued a corrective disclosure on January 8, 2019, stating the project would be completed in 2019, but this was buried in a positive press release.

Subsequent press releases on February 6 and 7, 2019, revealed the collapse of the project's financing and partnership, leading to a significant market impact.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable chance the action would succeed, emphasizing that materiality must be assessed contextually, considering the full business circumstances, not just immediate market reaction to a decontextualized disclosure.

This continued case conference endorsement addresses the plaintiff's request to adjourn a multi-day leave motion in a proposed class action until an in-person hearing is possible, due to concerns about conducting a complex hearing virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant was prepared to proceed virtually.

The court, acknowledging the evolving confidence in virtual hearings and the need for courts to operate, ordered the motion to proceed by videoconference on the previously scheduled dates of June 23 and 24, 2020, finding that remote procedures are not inherently unfair and practical issues can be addressed through cooperation.

In a proposed class action, the defendant sought to proceed with a two-day leave motion virtually via videoconference due to COVID-19 court suspensions.

The plaintiff opposed, citing logistical difficulties for a complex motion with a voluminous evidentiary record, including the inability for counsel teams to be together.

The court, while acknowledging the desire to avoid delay, declined to compel the plaintiff to proceed virtually, prioritizing due process concerns and the plaintiff's ability to present their case effectively.

The leave motion was rescheduled for an in-court hearing.

This endorsement outlines an agreed-upon procedural timetable for a motion in a class proceeding.

It sets deadlines for the exchange of motion records, completion of cross-examinations, delivery of facta, and schedules the hearing dates for September 2020.

The parties agreed to a timetable for the plaintiff's upcoming motion, with the hearing scheduled for May 5 and 6, 2020.

This is a timetable endorsement setting out the agreed-upon schedule for a motion.

The endorsement details the deadlines for serving motion records, responding motion records, completing cross-examinations, delivering factums, and the dates for the motion hearing.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a class action for secondary market misrepresentation against a company and its officers.

The claims arose from an unauthorized investment made by the CEO, which was not fully disclosed in subsequent financial statements and press releases.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility that the CFO knew or deliberately avoided knowing about the unauthorized investment, and that a press release announcing the CEO's departure constituted a public correction, signaling concerns about the CEO's conduct related to the investment.

The court determined the costs award following the dismissal of a securities class action against the defendant on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens grounds.

The successful defendant sought $696,393 in partial indemnity costs for both the jurisdiction and certification motions, while the plaintiff proposed $75,000 at most.

The court adjusted the defendant's request, particularly by removing expert fees for "efficient market" analysis deemed unnecessary.

Considering the timing of the jurisdiction motion and the impact of a prior analogous decision (Yip v HSBC Holdings) which simplified the legal analysis, the court fixed costs at $260,000, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness to the losing party under Rule 57.01(1).

The plaintiff, George Leon, brought a proposed class action in Ontario against Volkswagen AG for fraudulent misrepresentation related to the purchase of VWAG American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) and common shares on foreign exchanges.

Volkswagen AG moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, to stay it on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed the action, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario, as VWAG did not carry on business in Ontario and the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation was not committed there.

The court also found that the U.S. (for ADRs) and Germany (for common shares) were clearly more appropriate forums, emphasizing the principle of international comity in cross-border securities litigation and giving little weight to the plaintiff's asserted juridical advantages in Ontario.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that they engaged in insider trading after receiving material non-public information from an administrative assistant at an investment bank.

The Commission relied on circumstantial evidence, including the proximity of telephone calls to highly profitable trades.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Commission's inferences were reasonable and that the use of compelled examination transcripts was procedurally fair.

The Court also upheld the sanctions, which included trading bans, administrative penalties, and disgorgement orders.

The applicant, a registered investment representative, sought a hearing and review of an IIROC decision finding him liable for recommending transactions that caused unnecessary fees to clients and undue commissions to himself, and for borrowing funds from clients.

The applicant argued that IIROC's denial of his adjournment request was procedurally unfair.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the applicant failed to provide required medical evidence to support his adjournment request.

The Commission upheld IIROC's findings on liability, concluding that the applicant's transactions were outside the bounds of good business practice and that borrowing from clients constituted conduct unbecoming.

The Commission also found the penalties imposed by IIROC, including disgorgement and fines, to be proportionate.

Following a merits decision finding multiple respondents liable for insider trading, tipping, and misleading Staff, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine appropriate sanctions and costs.

The Commission ordered permanent market prohibitions against the tipper and the most egregious trader, along with substantial administrative penalties and costs.

Other respondents received 15-year market prohibitions with limited carve-outs, administrative penalties, and disgorgement orders.

The Commission emphasized the importance of general and specific deterrence, particularly given the respondents' roles as registrants and their efforts to conceal their misconduct.

Julian Robert Ricci applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for a hearing and review of an IIROC hearing panel decision that suspended him for 24 months, fined him $200,000, and ordered $15,000 in costs for making misrepresentations to his firm's compliance staff and falsely endorsing client signatures.

Ricci argued the panel overlooked material evidence of client support and his prior non-registered time, and that the suspension was overly harsh.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding the IIROC panel did not overlook material evidence, err in law, or impose an unfit suspension, noting the Commission's restrained approach to interfering with self-regulatory organization sanctions.

The respondents brought a motion to revoke or vary an investigative order issued under section 11 of the Securities Act.

The respondents argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue the order because its purpose was to enforce a sanctions order, which they claimed was not part of the due administration of Ontario securities law.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the enforcement of sanctions is an essential object of the Act and that Staff may use investigative orders to gather information about potential asset transfers intended to negate sanctions.

Enforcement Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to admit into evidence selected excerpts from transcripts of compelled examinations of the respondents conducted pursuant to section 13 of the Securities Act.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing that the admission of compelled testimony violated the Securities Act, the Evidence Act, the Charter, and principles of procedural fairness.

One respondent also brought a cross-motion seeking a confidentiality order for the motion materials.

The Commission held that compelled testimony is admissible in regulatory proceedings and is not precluded by the Charter or the Evidence Act.

However, to ensure fairness and obtain the best evidence, the Commission directed that Staff may only tender the transcripts at the conclusion of its case for those respondents who do not undertake to testify, with a limited exception for proving allegations of misleading statements.

The Commission also granted the cross-motion, ordering the motion materials to remain confidential while releasing the decision publicly.

The applicant sought a temporary cease trade order against an insider bid made by the respondent, alleging the respondent failed to obtain a formal valuation as required by MI 61-101.

The applicant argued the respondent possessed undisclosed material information, specifically confidential power purchase agreement pricing and wind speed data.

The Commission found the applicant failed to provide prima facie evidence that the information was material, noting the applicant's own Directors' Circular stated there was no undisclosed material information.

The Commission dismissed the request for a temporary cease trade order and granted the respondent's cross-motion to dismiss the application.