Andrew Steven Faith

The applicant and respondent, who are brothers and equal shareholders in several corporations, commenced competing proceedings alleging oppression, misappropriation of funds, and breaches of fiduciary duty.

The respondent brought a motion to convert the applicant's application into an action and consolidate it with his own action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the extensive factual disputes, serious allegations of dishonesty, and need for credibility assessments required a full trial with oral evidence.

The proceedings were consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judicial findings.

The proposed defendant brought a cross-motion to strike paragraphs from an affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of an unopposed motion to amend its statement of claim.

The moving party argued the paragraphs contained inadmissible hearsay and were scandalous and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that the statements were not tendered for the truth of their contents but to explain when the plaintiff discovered its claim against the moving party for limitation purposes.

The court also noted that since the amendment motion was unopposed, leaving the affidavit intact would not prejudice the moving party.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a professional engineer and an engineering firm regarding the failed design of a critical structural component of the Nipigon River Bridge.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct, acknowledging they failed to verify critical design assumptions and provided inadequate oversight of a junior engineer.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-week licence suspension for the engineer, a requirement for the firm to implement a Quality Assurance Plan, and $200,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding he breached a 15-year trading ban by participating in stock secured financings.

The Tribunal found that the lenders' sales of pledged securities constituted trades, and the appellant's actions, including sourcing financing and analyzing the value of the pledged equities for compensation tied to the sales' profits, were acts in furtherance of those trades.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal made no palpable and overriding error in its contextual analysis of the appellant's conduct.

The applicant, Harry Littler, a director of CMC Credit Ltd., sought an order compelling the respondents to provide access to CMC’s books and records, including loan agreements.

The respondent, Michael Smith, objected on the basis of privacy legislation (PIPEDA) and alleged improper purpose.

The court found that directors have an unconditional statutory right to inspect corporate records under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, and that PIPEDA does not prevent such access.

The application was granted, and costs were fixed in favour of the applicant.

The decision grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, who were defrauded of $2.65 million in a real estate investment scheme involving a solicitor’s law firm, his office manager/mother, and an in-house mortgage broker.

The court finds the solicitor and his firm liable for breach of trust, negligence, and fiduciary duty, and holds the property company and its principals jointly and severally liable.

The court awards compensatory and punitive damages, as well as substantial indemnity costs.

The Capital Markets Tribunal held a sanctions hearing after finding that the respondent breached a 2004 order permanently banning him from acting as a director or officer of an issuer and from trading in securities for 15 years.

The Tribunal ordered permanent market participation bans, disgorgement of over $3.2 million and US$10.7 million, administrative penalties totaling $1,000,000, and $300,000 in costs.

The Tribunal found the respondent's conduct to be a flagrant and recurrent breach of a Tribunal order, warranting significant specific and general deterrence.

The moving parties, professional engineers and engineering firms involved in the design and construction of the Nipigon River Bridge, brought a motion to stay disciplinary proceedings against them on the basis of delay.

The Discipline Committee found that the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) was responsible for approximately 36 months of inordinate delay in its investigation.

However, the Committee dismissed the motion, concluding that the moving parties failed to establish significant prejudice that would compromise hearing fairness or amount to an abuse of process.

The Committee further held that the public interest in holding a hearing on the merits regarding the failure of major public infrastructure outweighed any disrepute caused by the delay.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent breached a 2004 settlement order which permanently banned him from acting as a director or officer of an issuer and banned him from trading in securities for 15 years.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the director and officer ban by acting as a director and/or officer of 38 Ontario corporations.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent breached the trading ban by participating in the sale of shares in an Ontario corporation and by participating in several offshore stock secured financings where he acted in furtherance of trades.

The allegation of conduct contrary to the public interest was dismissed as no additional conduct beyond the statutory breaches was identified.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Ministries disqualifying its bid for a government debt collection contract.

The applicant was disqualified at the evaluation stage for failing to demonstrate it was currently registered under the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procurement dispute was commercial in nature and not subject to judicial review.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Ministries' decision to disqualify the bid based on an expired registration certificate was reasonable and that the process was procedurally fair.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding that he engaged in fraudulent conduct under s. 126.1 of the Securities Act by approving unauthorized transfers of cash between investment funds to pay distributions and dealer fees.

The appellant argued the Panel erred in its factual findings, its rejection of his due diligence and reliance on legal advice defences, and its imposition of sanctions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Panel's factual findings or legal analysis, but reduced the disgorgement order from $51,361 to $45,298 based on a concession by the respondent regarding the calculation methodology.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adjourn the merits hearing because its lead counsel left the Commission and newly retained external counsel was unavailable for the first five scheduled dates.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Staff failed to establish exceptional circumstances under Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Staff did not provide evidence of any steps taken to avoid an adjournment, such as considering internal counsel or searching for other available external counsel.

The appellant, a registered nurse practitioner, appealed a 10-month suspension imposed by the Discipline Committee for failing to maintain professional boundaries by engaging in an intimate relationship with a former patient while continuing to treat the former patient's spouse.

The appellant argued the penalty was unfit and failed to adequately account for the abusive nature of the relationship and her vulnerability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Panel made no error in principle, properly considered the mitigating psychological evidence, and imposed a fit penalty within the reasonable range given the serious impact on both patients.

The Member and Holder faced professional discipline allegations regarding their review and approval of inadequate design drawings and hydraulic calculations for a building's fire protection system.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts in which the Member and Holder admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain reasonable engineering standards and failing to comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, remedial coursework, and practice restrictions.

The Committee also ordered that the decision be published with names to serve the goals of openness, transparency, and general deterrence.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $50,000.

The appellant argued for no costs or a maximum of $5,000, claiming the appeal raised an issue of public importance.

The Divisional Court rejected the no-costs argument, noting the appellant re-litigated factual issues, attacked the integrity of the discipline process, and constantly evolved his grounds of appeal, which increased the respondent's costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $35,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This endorsement addresses the sequencing of motions in a series of related class actions.

The 2018 plaintiffs sought a temporary stay of the 2022 actions.

The defendants proposed hearing the stay motion concurrently with their summary judgment motions, citing limitation period defenses.

The 2022 plaintiffs argued for their certification motion to proceed if the stay was delayed.

The court, acting as case management judge, directed that the motion to stay be heard first, finding no significant efficiencies in combining it with the summary judgment motions and stating that certification motions should only proceed after summary judgment motions are determined.

The plaintiffs in two putative class actions sought leave to discontinue one action entirely and partially discontinue the second against all but one defendant group.

This procedural step aimed to streamline the proceedings by converting omnibus actions into separate class proceedings against distinct defendant groups.

The defendants did not oppose the requests.

The court granted leave for both discontinuances, recognizing the efficiency gains.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in fraudulent conduct by diverting $234,864.04 from a solar energy fund contrary to its offering memorandum, the Capital Markets Tribunal held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement of the diverted funds, imposed administrative penalties totaling $476,000, and ordered the respondents to pay $112,500 in costs.

The Tribunal also imposed permanent market bans on the respondents, subject to limited carve-outs for personal trading and acting as directors of specific private family companies.

The appellant, a licensed professional engineer, appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct for providing engineering services to the public without a certificate of authorization and for breaching an agreement not to provide outside services while employed by the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Discipline Committee made no palpable and overriding errors in its factual findings.

The Court also confirmed that under the Professional Engineers Act, all licensed professional engineers require a certificate of authorization to offer or provide services to the public.

Finally, the Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding procedural unfairness, bias, and abuse of process.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place to deny them the right to rent space for a Hallowe'en-themed event due to alleged harassment of staff.

The Board raised a preliminary issue that the decision was a private contractual matter and not subject to judicial review.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the decision to not enter into a short-term rental agreement was an exercise of private law discretion, not a statutory power of decision or a matter of sufficient public character.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.