Alistair Crawley

The law firm Crawley MacKewn Brush LLP (CMB) brought a motion seeking an order to be appointed as representative counsel for approximately 3,000 investors in the receivership of Crystal Wealth Management Systems Inc. The court-appointed Receiver, Grant Thornton Limited, and the Ontario Securities Commission opposed the motion, arguing that it would be duplicative of the Receiver's role and would result in unnecessary professional fees.

The court dismissed CMB's motion, finding that the Receiver was already adequately protecting and advancing the investors' interests, and that appointing representative counsel would add unnecessary expense without good reason.

The respondents moved to stay or dismiss the applicants' oppression remedy application under the Business Corporations Act, challenging the Ontario court's jurisdiction and arguing *forum non conveniens*.

They also sought to set aside service and argued the application was frivolous or vexatious.

The court found Ontario had jurisdiction due to the corporation's domicile and the exclusive jurisdiction of s. 248 of the OBCA.

The *forum non conveniens* argument was rejected as no alternate forum could hear the OBCA claims.

Service was deemed proper, and the frivolous/vexatious argument was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitral award finding it breached contractual and fiduciary duties by failing to redeem the respondent's hedge fund investment.

The arbitrator awarded $1.3 million in damages, rejecting the applicant's argument that damages should be assessed based on an alternative, less onerous method of performance.

The Superior Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the contract as mandating only one method of performance and that the applicant's challenges raised issues of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

RBC Dominion Securities Inc. and Royal Bank of Canada Europe Limited (collectively "RBC") sued Crew Gold Corporation ("Crew") for a success fee under a financial advisory agreement.

RBC argued that the fee was payable for third-party share purchases that resulted in a change of control of Crew, even without RBC's direct involvement.

Crew contended that the agreement required its involvement in any transaction triggering the fee and that the fee was contingent on RBC's provision of financial advisory services.

The court interpreted the contract as requiring a causal link between RBC's activities and the completed transaction.

Finding no ambiguity in the contract language, and considering the factual matrix, the court concluded that the third-party open market transactions were not within the contemplation of the parties when the agreement was executed.

RBC's action was dismissed.

The defendant brought an unsuccessful summary judgment motion and the plaintiffs sought costs of $37,610.84 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award costs to the plaintiffs, finding that the summary judgment motion was reasonably brought and the issues of damages and limitation periods would still need to be determined at trial.

The court ordered costs in the cause.

The defendant investment firm brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs, who were victims of their former investment advisor's Ponzi scheme, argued they did not discover their claims against the firm until the advisor's fraud was exposed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the plaintiffs, as allegedly unsophisticated investors, knew or ought to have known of their claims earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

The plaintiff self-regulatory organization brought a motion for summary judgment to recover $80,000 in costs ordered by its disciplinary hearing panel against a former registrant.

The defendant had previously been found guilty of misconduct involving undisclosed financial interests in client accounts and was permanently banned and fined by the disciplinary panel.

Appeals to the securities regulator and the Divisional Court were dismissed, and the defendant failed to pay the ordered costs.

The court held that membership in the regulatory organization created a contractual obligation to comply with its by-laws, rules, and disciplinary orders, including costs awards.

The court concluded that the costs order was enforceable through a civil action for breach of contract.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining an anonymous online poster from publishing defamatory statements on an internet message board about the plaintiff, the CEO of a publicly traded company.

The impugned posts alleged fraud, stock manipulation, offshore accounts, and other misconduct.

The court found the statements were manifestly defamatory, unsupported by any justification, and likely to cause irreparable harm given the wide dissemination and permanence of internet publications.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction because the alleged defamation caused reputational harm in the province.

An interim injunction was granted restraining the defendant from publishing further defamatory statements.