Andrew Gray

A pharmaceutical distributor sued after a retailer terminated a long-term supply agreement based on a dispute over whether contractual negative financial impact compensation and earned term extensions continued beyond the initial term.

The court held that the compensation mechanism applied throughout the defined Term, including extensions, and that the retailer wrongfully terminated the agreement on March 31, 2021.

Applying the minimum performance doctrine, the court held that extensions earned before breach could not be unwound, but post-breach damages had to be assessed on the least burdensome mode of future contractual performance, limiting the term to December 31, 2022.

The plaintiff recovered NFI compensation, lost-profit damages to be calculated, and severance-based reliance damages, while claims for reclassified product margins, warehouse losses, transportation costs, vendor settlements, and enhanced prejudgment interest were denied.

On the counterclaim, the defendants recovered withheld OTC rebates and unused prepayment funds, but their transition-period lost-sales claim failed.

Aimia Inc. brought an application under s. 104 of the Securities Act alleging that Mithaq Capital SPC's acquisition of shares a year prior constituted a deemed take-over bid because Mithaq acted jointly with others to exceed the 20% threshold.

Mithaq brought a motion to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that while Aimia had standing to bring the application, the application was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the application because Aimia's long delay in seeking relief, combined with significant intervening events, made the application a misuse of the Tribunal's procedure.

Mithaq Canada Inc. applied to the Capital Markets Tribunal to cease trade a private placement by Aimia Inc., arguing it was an abusive defensive tactic designed to thwart Mithaq's take-over bid.

Mithaq also sought to set aside a decision of the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) that conditionally approved the private placement without requiring shareholder approval.

Aimia brought a cross-application to deny Mithaq the use of the 5% exemption for share purchases.

The Tribunal dismissed both applications.

It found that Aimia had a serious and immediate need for financing, and the private placement was negotiated largely before Mithaq's bid became imminent.

Although the private placement altered the bid dynamics, it was not clearly abusive.

The Tribunal also found no grounds to interfere with the TSX's decision, as the TSX did not err in principle and there was no compelling new evidence.

Finally, the Tribunal declined to alter the minimum tender condition or deny Mithaq the 5% exemption, finding no exceptional circumstances or lack of good faith.

Mithaq Canada Inc. applied to the Capital Markets Tribunal to cease trade a shareholder rights plan and a private placement adopted by Aimia Inc., alleging they were improper defensive tactics against Mithaq's unsolicited take-over bid.

Mithaq sought interim relief pending the full hearing.

The Tribunal ordered that the private placement be cease traded unless Aimia undertook that any securities issued under it would not be tendered to any alternative take-over bid or issuer bid.

The Tribunal dismissed Mithaq's requests for additional undertakings, including requiring Aimia to segregate the private placement proceeds or assume responsibility for investor breaches.

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.

Mercer International Inc. applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for a simultaneous hearing with the Québec Bureau de décision et de révision to consider whether AbitibiBowater's take-over bid for Fibrek Inc. should be cease traded.

The Commission acknowledged it had jurisdiction to hear the application, as Fibrek is a reporting issuer in Ontario and the bid affected Ontario shareholders.

However, the Commission declined to exercise its jurisdiction, noting that the Bureau was already seized of the matter, the applicable securities laws were substantially similar, and a simultaneous hearing would not advance the harmonization and co-ordination of securities regulatory regimes.

The application was dismissed.

The Executive Director of the Ontario Securities Commission applied under s. 144 of the Securities Act to vary or revoke a prior Commission decision that required notice be given to two corporate account holders of a bank before disclosing compelled documents to a foreign regulator.

Staff also sought a sealing order for fresh evidence without disclosing it to the bank.

The Commission granted the sealing order but required confidential disclosure to the bank's counsel to ensure procedural fairness.

The Commission dismissed the s. 144 application, finding that Staff was improperly using the provision as an appeal mechanism, which is contrary to the legislative intent of the Act and the public interest.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an order under subsection 17(1) of the Securities Act to permit a foreign securities regulator to disclose compelled documents to a foreign criminal law enforcement agency.

The documents related to two account holders and were obtained from a bank via a summons.

Staff argued that notice to the account holders was not required.

The Commission held that the account holders, who were named in the summons, were 'persons or companies named by the Commission' under subsection 17(2)(a) and were therefore entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The issue of whether their consent was required under subsection 17(3) was deferred until after notice was given.

NorthWest Value Partners Inc. applied for a hearing and review of two decisions of the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) regarding InterRent Real Estate Investment Trust: a decision accepting notice of a private placement without requiring unitholder approval, and a decision allowing InterRent to postpone its annual meeting.

On preliminary motions, the Ontario Securities Commission granted intervenor status to CLV Group Inc., denied NorthWest's request for disclosure of the subscribers' names, and concluded it would defer to the TSX's decision on the private placement as NorthWest failed to establish grounds for intervention under the Canada Malting test.

The Commission also dismissed the request to review the meeting date decision because it was filed outside the 30-day statutory time limit.

The applicant, Y, applied under section 17 of the Securities Act for disclosure of compelled and voluntary evidence obtained by the Ontario Securities Commission during an investigation.

Y sought the evidence to make full answer and defence to criminal fraud charges.

The Commission balanced Y's right to make full answer and defence against the privacy interests of the witnesses who provided the evidence.

The Commission granted disclosure for witnesses who consented or did not object, and for those who opposed but were on the Crown's witness list, subject to strict confidentiality terms.

Disclosure was denied for opposing witnesses not on the Crown's witness list.

NorthWest Value Partners Inc. applied for a hearing and review of two decisions of the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) regarding InterRent Real Estate Investment Trust.

The TSX had allowed a private placement to proceed without unitholder approval and permitted a delay in the annual meeting.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted intervenor status to CLV Group Inc. but denied it to Mike McGahan.

The Commission declined to order disclosure of the private placees' names to protect their privacy.

Applying the Canada Malting test, the Commission deferred to the TSX Listing Committee Decision, finding no grounds to intervene.

The application to review the TSX Meeting Date Decision was dismissed as it was filed out of time.

The applicants, minority shareholders of Sterling Centrecorp Inc., applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for an order under sections 104 and 127 of the Securities Act.

They sought to exclude the votes of certain shareholders who had signed support agreements from the 'majority of the minority' approval required for a going private transaction under OSC Rule 61-501, arguing these shareholders were 'joint actors' with the acquiring insiders.

The Commission found that one major shareholder, a former member of the acquisition group, was a joint actor and ordered his votes excluded.

However, the Commission concluded that the other supporting shareholders were not joint actors merely by virtue of signing the support agreements.

As the transaction still achieved the requisite majority of the minority approval even after excluding the joint actor's votes, the Commission declined to cease trade the transaction or require a new shareholder meeting.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the proceeding against them on the basis that it was commenced outside the six-year limitation period under section 129.1 of the Securities Act.

Staff alleged a course of conduct involving unregistered trading and illegal distributions that culminated in sales to broker dealers prior to the limitation date, but argued that subsequent receipt of proceeds and certain private share transfers brought the conduct within the limitation period.

The Commission held that the subsequent events were not integral to the alleged wrongdoing and that the Statement of Allegations contained no separate allegations of wrongdoing for events after the limitation date.

The motion was granted and the proceeding dismissed.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents, K.Y. Ho and Betty Ho, engaged in insider trading contrary to subsection 76(1) of the Securities Act by disposing of ATI shares prior to a public announcement that ATI would fall short of its forecasted revenue and earnings for Q3-2000.

The Commission dismissed the allegations, finding that Staff failed to establish that the revenue shortfall was a known fact at the time the shares were disposed of, and consequently, the respondents could not have had actual knowledge of it.

Furthermore, the Commission held that K.Y. Ho's charitable donations of shares were gifts made in good faith and did not constitute 'sales' for the purposes of the insider trading provisions.

The respondent brought a motion for a nonsuit at the close of Staff's case, arguing that Staff failed to establish a prima facie case of insider trading.

The Commission held that a nonsuit motion is available in its proceedings and exercised its discretion not to put the respondent to an election on whether to call evidence.

Applying the test of whether there is any evidence which, taken at its highest, establishes a reasonable inference in favour of Staff, the Commission found that a prima facie case had been made out.

The motion for a nonsuit was dismissed.

One Commissioner dissented on the issue of election, finding that the respondent should have been required to elect whether to call evidence.

The applicant, a respondent in an insider trading proceeding, brought a pre-hearing motion seeking a ruling that the Commission could not make a public interest order against her under section 127 of the Securities Act if Staff failed to prove the specific allegation of insider trading under section 76(1).

A prior panel had dismissed the same motion as premature.

The Hearing Panel agreed with the prior panel, holding that it was inappropriate to tie the hands of the decision-makers before hearing the evidence and closing submissions.

The motion was dismissed as premature.