Alistair Crawley

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction.

As the defendants were only served on the morning of the hearing, the motion proceeded effectively on an ex parte basis.

The court found sufficient grounds in the plaintiff's materials to justify issuing an interim injunction and scheduled a return date for a full hearing.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed David Jarvis’s appeal regarding his entitlement to exercise stock options after resigning as a director of 1CM Inc. The court found that the corporate documents clearly required Jarvis to be a director at the time of exercising the options.

Jarvis failed to demonstrate any error in the application judge’s interpretation of the plan.

The respondent was awarded costs of $15,000.

The Ontario Securities Commission sought approval of a settlement agreement with Kallo Inc., its CEO, and an employee.

The respondents admitted to making materially false or misleading statements regarding non-existent healthcare infrastructure contracts with African governments, contrary to s. 126.2(1) of the Securities Act.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, imposing an administrative penalty of $200,000, costs of $55,000, and various market participation bans, finding the terms reasonable and in the public interest.

The Trustee of the Alexander Morris Sharpe Trust sought the court's advice and directions on whether legal fees for David and Natasha Sharpe could be paid from the trust, which was established for the "sole and exclusive" benefit of their minor son, Alexander Morris Sharpe.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed, arguing the trust language was clear and restrictive.

The court ruled that the trust funds could not be used to pay the legal fees, as such payments would not be for the "sole and exclusive" benefit of the minor beneficiary, even if there was a collateral benefit.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding they engaged in illegal insider trading and tipping regarding Amaya Gaming Group Inc.'s acquisition of PokerStars, and imposing sanctions including market bans and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued the Tribunal erred in relying on circumstantial evidence, misapplying the law on similar fact evidence, and imposing punitive sanctions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's factual findings or inferences, and holding that the sanctions were protective and within the Tribunal's wide discretion.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) brought a motion seeking an order for the issuance of Letters of Request in Commissions under section 152 of the Securities Act.

The OSC required evidence from two individuals, one residing in British Columbia and one in Massachusetts, USA, for a proceeding before the Capital Markets Tribunal concerning Bridging Finance Inc. and its respondents.

The respondents did not oppose the motion.

The court granted the order, finding that the proposed witnesses had relevant evidence and that the Letters of Request and Commissions accorded with Rule 34.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents moved to stay an enforcement proceeding and requested the Tribunal issue summonses to five members of OSC Staff to testify at the stay motion hearing.

The respondents sought evidence regarding the OSC's decision to include compelled evidence in a receivership application without a section 17 order.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in a previous motion for documentary disclosure, and that the respondents failed to establish a reasonable basis that the summonses would lead to relevant evidence of abusive conduct.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment motion that found the appellants liable for knowing assistance and knowing receipt in a fraudulent scheme.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by drawing unwarranted inferences of liability based largely on the mere rejection of the appellants' evidence, rather than requiring positive proof.

The motion judge also made speculative and stereotypical findings regarding the appellants' credibility and financial arrangements.

The Court held that the rejection of a witness's evidence does not amount to positive proof of the opposite proposition.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the case remitted to the Superior Court for trial.

The Capital Markets Tribunal issued its reasons and decision on sanctions and costs following a merits decision that found the respondents engaged in insider trading, tipping, and misleading Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission.

The Tribunal imposed significant market participation bans ranging from 3 to 15 years, administrative penalties totaling $2.95 million, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains totaling over $1.4 million, and costs of approximately $735,000.

The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of insider trading and tipping, noting that such conduct undermines investor confidence and the integrity of the capital markets.

The moving party, David Sharpe, sought a stay of an earlier Tribunal decision that dismissed his request to keep certain portions of the adjudicative record confidential.

He sought the stay pending his application for judicial review of that decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to stay a final decision on confidentiality.

The Tribunal further held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not grant the stay because Sharpe failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in the transparency of Tribunal proceedings.

The moving party, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., sought to set aside previous orders dismissing its motion for security for costs against the responding party, Active Security and Cable Inc., on the basis of fraud or newly discovered facts under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

Rogers alleged that an erroneous payment of over $876,000 and other newly discovered facts regarding Active Security's financial status warranted setting aside the orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the new evidence would not have likely altered the original decision, which relied primarily on a large CRA debt.

Furthermore, Rogers failed to prove fraudulent concealment and had made a tactical decision not to raise the new evidence during the appeal process.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order regarding the production of documents.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on a single issue: whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents after May 2016, having found an implied joint retainer among the parties and their counsel.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The applicant sought an order to keep portions of the adjudicative records and written submissions confidential in a proceeding before the Capital Markets Tribunal.

The records contained compelled evidence from an investigation that had already been made public in a related receivership application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the high bar required to depart from the open court principle, especially given that the material had been publicly available for over a year.

The defendants (Trinity Development Group Inc., Trinity Albert LP, and John Ruddy) brought a motion to compel Capital Sports Management Inc. (CSMI) and Eugene Melnyk to produce documents related to the work of Gowling WLG LLP for RendezVous LeBreton Group (RLG) and the LeBreton Project.

Trinity argued that Gowlings was jointly retained by CSMI and Trinity in relation to the RLG joint venture, or that common interest privilege applied, or that CSMI had waived privilege.

CSMI contended that Gowlings acted solely for CSMI.

The court found that a joint retainer existed between Gowlings, CSMI, and Trinity for the RLG and LeBreton Project from July 23, 2015, to November 23, 2018, based on objective evidence including Gowlings' representation of RLG to third parties, shared instructions, and shared payment of fees.

The court also noted that CSMI's pleading of a fiduciary relationship with Trinity was inconsistent with its claim of privilege.

The motion to compel production was granted, requiring CSMI to produce the requested documents in unredacted form.

The applicant sought to revoke a section 11 investigation order after the Ontario Securities Commission publicly disclosed his compelled testimony in a receivership application without first obtaining a section 17 disclosure order.

The Tribunal held that the Commission is bound by the confidentiality provisions of section 16 and cannot publicly disclose compelled evidence without a section 17 order.

However, the Tribunal concluded that revoking the section 11 investigation order was not an appropriate remedy for the improper disclosure, as the disclosure occurred after the order was issued and revocation would be purely punitive.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $290,704 following a successful bifurcated certification motion in a class action against the defendant.

The defendant argued the costs should be reduced by 50% because the plaintiff was successful in certifying the common law negligence claim but unsuccessful in certifying the statutory misrepresentation claim.

The court rejected the defendant's argument, finding that the plaintiff was the successful party in a complex, hard-fought motion and that divided success on specific claims does not necessarily warrant a reduction in costs.

The plaintiff was awarded the full amount claimed.

The applicants, former directors of PACE Savings & Credit Union, sought a declaration that CUMIS General Insurance Company had a duty to defend them in an action brought by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) as administrator of PACE.

CUMIS denied coverage based on the 'Insured vs. Insured' exclusion in the Directors' and Officers' Liability Policy.

The court held that while the exclusion applied, the 'derivative action' exception restored coverage because the FSRA, acting as a 'person', brought the claim on behalf of the corporation.

The court also ruled that applicants facing fraud claims were entitled to independent counsel due to a conflict of interest, while those facing only negligence claims were not.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 17, 2020, and to stay an order dated February 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion in a brief endorsement.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the manager of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) that suffered catastrophic losses following a spike in market volatility.

The plaintiff advanced claims in common law negligence and statutory misrepresentation under s. 130 of the Securities Act.

The court certified the common law negligence claim, finding it met all certification criteria.

However, the court refused to certify the s. 130 claim because the plaintiff could not satisfy the identifiable class criterion, as it was impossible to prove which investors purchased 'Creation Units' directly from the manager versus units on the secondary market.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action on behalf of debenture holders of Discovery Air Inc., alleging oppression by the defendants in a series of transactions that transferred Discovery's primary asset to Clairvest at a material discount.

Clairvest consented to certification but disputed the common issues and sought discovery directions, while the remaining defendants argued the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against them.

The court found the pleadings sufficiently detailed to disclose a cause of action against the individual directors and the Top Aces entities.

The court certified the action, adopted a broad definition of the common issues with some additions proposed by Clairvest regarding causation and reasonable expectations, and declined to order non-party production or expanded discovery at this early stage.