Alexander D. Rose

The Ontario Securities Commission sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Traders Global Group Inc. and related entities based on allegations of fraud and unregistered securities trading.

The receiver was appointed in January 2024.

More than nineteen months later, the respondents brought a motion to discharge the receiver, and the receiver sought directions regarding disclosure of data to the Commission.

The court found that significant changes in circumstances had occurred since the appointment, including the dismissal of related U.S. proceedings due to misconduct by CFTC staff whose evidence had supported the receivership appointment, the discovery of a Nova Scotia decision that undermined the novelty of the Commission's legal theory, and substantial delay in the investigation without issuance of an Application for Enforcement Proceeding.

The court granted the respondents' alternative request to vary the appointment order, reducing the frozen assets from tens of millions to $10 million in escrow, while retaining the receiver to administer the escrow and act as intermediary for data disclosure.

The court also confirmed the receiver's authority to share non-privileged data with the Commission under the appointment order.

The appellant, a creditor of the Kyrgyz Republic, appealed the dismissal of its garnishment motion against Centerra Gold Inc., seeking to garnish a $50 million intercompany payment made by Centerra to its subsidiary, Kumtor Gold Company CJSC (KGC), as part of a court-approved plan of arrangement.

The appellant argued that the Kyrgyz Republic was the alter ego of KGC due to de facto appropriation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the application judge's determination that Centerra had not lost all control over KGC and was not deprived of all economic benefits, and that KGC remained a separate corporate entity.

Following the approval of a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act, the successful applicant sought costs against the objecting creditors.

The objectors argued the applicant was disentitled to costs for failing to request them initially and that the quantum sought was excessive.

The court rejected the disentitlement argument, finding the objectors had notice that costs would be addressed in writing.

The court awarded $100,000 in costs, reducing the requested amount for proportionality, and ordered the costs payable jointly and severally by the objectors as they had pursued a common strategy.

Optiva Inc. appealed a Superior Court decision that refused to set aside an arbitration award and denied leave to appeal.

The arbitration award found Optiva breached a contract with Tbaytel and awarded damages.

The Court of Appeal addressed whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to proceed by summary judgment, whether Optiva's challenge to this ruling was time-barred under s. 17(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and whether the arbitrator based his interpretation of a limitation of liability clause on a legal theory not advanced by the parties.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator had broad procedural powers, the s. 17(8) time limit did not apply to procedural rulings, and no new legal theory was introduced.

The applicant mining company sought a final order approving a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act to sever ties with the Kyrgyz Republic following the state's seizure of its flagship mine.

Two unsecured judgment creditors of the Republic objected, seeking to enforce their arbitral awards against the Republic's shares in the applicant or garnish payments under the Arrangement.

The court approved the Arrangement, finding it met the statutory requirements, had a valid business purpose, and was fair and reasonable.

The court held the creditors lacked standing to oppose the Arrangement and that garnishment was inappropriate as it would result in double jeopardy.

The applicant, Centerra Gold Inc., sought a permanent injunction against its former director, Tengiz Bolturuk, for breaching his fiduciary duties and duty of confidentiality.

Bolturuk, nominated by the Kyrgyz Republic's state-owned corporation, was found to have secretly orchestrated the takeover of Centerra's Kumtor gold mine by the Kyrgyz Republic while still a director, disclosing confidential information and subsequently becoming the External Manager of the seized mine.

The court found that Bolturuk's actions constituted a clear usurpation of corporate opportunity and a flagrant breach of his duties, rejecting his justifications.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction over a former director for breaches stemming from their position and found damages to be an inadequate remedy.

Bolturuk's cross-motion to set aside an interim injunction was dismissed.

The permanent injunction was granted, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against Bolturuk.

Tbaytel, the moving party, sought to strike an affidavit filed by Optiva Inc., the responding party, in connection with Optiva's pending motion for leave to appeal an arbitration award.

The affidavit, from J. Brian Casey, aimed to provide factual information regarding the public importance of issues raised in the leave to appeal motion, specifically concerning the availability of summary judgment in arbitration without consent and the arbitrator's use of case law.

The court partially granted the motion, striking parts of the affidavit that expressed opinions on the legal importance of issues or buttressed attacks on the correctness of prior decisions, while allowing factual descriptions of common arbitration practices to remain.

The appellant objected to their civil appeal proceeding in writing, arguing the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to order a written hearing over a party's objection, contrary to the *Courts of Justice Act* and *Rules of Civil Procedure*.

The court, through a Case Management Judge, dismissed the objection, affirming its broad implicit jurisdiction to manage its own process and ensure the just and efficient administration of justice, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that neither the Act nor the Rules mandate an absolute right to an oral hearing and found the appeal suitable for a written disposition.

An employer sought an interlocutory injunction enforcing a non‑competition covenant against a former executive who joined a competitor.

The employer alleged breach of a 2008 employment agreement and argued that, where a clear negative covenant is breached, the usual injunction test should not apply.

The court applied a modified RJR‑MacDonald test and held the employer failed to establish a strong prima facie case because the covenant may have been superseded by a later agreement and was arguably overly broad and unnecessary to protect legitimate interests.

The court also noted that the inevitable disclosure doctrine is not recognized in Canada and that evidence of irreparable harm was speculative.

The motion to enjoin the employee and the competitor was dismissed, although the employee was ordered not to disclose confidential information or solicit the employer’s customers.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking consolidation of an action and an application concerning ownership of a cottage, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful defendants.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of actual legal expenses.

The court assessed the roles played by counsel, the relative simplicity of the motion, and the absence of extensive responding materials.

Several defendants were awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting their limited participation, while the defendant who prepared the principal responding materials received a higher award.

The unsuccessful moving party was ordered to pay the fixed costs to each successful defendant within ninety days.

Following the dismissal of motions seeking injunctions preventing a retailer from using or disposing of pharmacy and patient information from pharmacies operating in its stores, the court addressed costs.

The moving parties sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, no costs due to alleged improper conduct, public interest considerations, and the asserted novelty of privacy-related issues.

The court rejected those submissions and held that the successful party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Although the respondent claimed over $113,000, the court reduced the amount due to excessive staffing, high hourly rates, and unwarranted disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable jointly and severally by all unsuccessful parties.

Licensed pharmacists operating pharmacies within retail stores sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the retailer from selling or transferring pharmacy records to third‑party pharmacy operators following the closure of the stores.

The moving parties argued the records belonged to them under the license agreements and that privacy legislation governing personal health information prevented the transfer.

The court held that the agreements clearly provided that customer records belonged to the retailer, though it acknowledged a low‑threshold serious issue regarding the interaction of contractual terms with health‑information legislation.

The court found no irreparable harm because any business losses could be compensated in damages and patient privacy would not be breached under the statutory regime permitting transfer of records to a successor health information custodian.

The balance of convenience favoured allowing the transfers to ensure continuity of patient care.

The motions for injunction were dismissed.