3 total
The court upheld the procedural enforcement of a regulatory penalty under the Securities Act and dismissed a contempt motion.
Hong Lam, a former mutual fund representative, brought a motion to set aside a Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA) Hearing Panel Order, which had been filed as a Superior Court Order under the amended s. 151 of the Securities Act.
Lam argued the amendment should not apply retrospectively to his pre-enactment conduct and that it impacted his substantive rights.
The MFDA argued it was an immediate application to an ongoing situation or, alternatively, a procedural change.
The MFDA also brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging Lam concealed property during an examination in aid of execution.
The court dismissed Lam's motion, finding that s. 151 applied immediately to the filing of the Hearing Panel decision, which occurred after the amendment, and was procedural in nature.
The court also dismissed the MFDA's cross-motion for contempt, finding that the MFDA failed to prove concealment beyond a reasonable doubt.
Action stayed in favour of arbitration; defendant's delivery of defence before discovering arbitration clause did not constitute undue delay.
The defendant former employer brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action pursuant to s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.
The plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the arbitration clause was invalid, the oppression claim was not arbitrable, and the defendant had delayed unduly by filing a statement of defence and counterclaim before raising the arbitration clause.
The court applied the five-part framework from Haas v. Gunasekaram and found that the dispute arguably fell within the broad arbitration clause.
The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments under s. 7(2), noting the defendant's counsel only discovered the arbitration clause during documentary discovery and raised it immediately.
The motion to stay the action was granted.
Motion to examine third-party witnesses dismissed as irrelevant and barred by issue estoppel.
The defendant brought a motion for leave to examine two third-party witnesses in advance of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion for possession of mortgaged property.
The defendant argued the witnesses had evidence relevant to his claim that the plaintiff fraudulently misrepresented her financial position prior to signing their separation agreement, entitling him to equitable set-off.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed evidence was not relevant to the enforcement of the separation agreement.
Furthermore, the court held that the issue of financial disclosure had already been conclusively determined in prior family law proceedings, and issue estoppel applied to prevent re-litigation.
