A. Nicole Westlake

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Manitoba was the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff alleged breach of employment contract obligations, including confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions, and related economic torts following the departure of an investment advisor to a competing firm.

Applying the presumptive connecting factor framework from Van Breda, the court held that Ontario had jurisdiction because the employer carried on business in Ontario and the employment contract was formed in Ontario when acceptance was received there.

The defendants failed to rebut the presumption of a real and substantial connection or demonstrate that Manitoba was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff’s cross-motion to have the action tried together with three other related Ontario actions was also dismissed due to material factual and contractual differences between the cases.

The plaintiff estate moved to vary a prior order refusing leave to amend its statement of claim to add a breach of contract cause of action against a bank in relation to alleged misappropriation of funds from a structured settlement account.

The motion relied on purported “new evidence” arising from discovery indicating that no written banking agreement could be located.

The court held that the alleged evidence was not new and had been known to the plaintiff before the earlier motion was decided.

The proposed amendment continued to advance a new cause of action after the expiry of the limitation period and failed to meet the threshold for varying the prior order.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation action under the Securities Act and to certify a class proceeding against the defendants for misrepresentation, conspiracy, and oppression.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fabricated a financial crisis by including a 'going concern' note in the company's financial statements to artificially depress the share price, allowing insiders to acquire shares cheaply.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial, as the financial disclosures were factual, required by GAAP, and made after reasonable investigation.

The court also refused to certify the conspiracy claim due to a lack of factual basis and struck the oppression claim, ruling that the Ontario Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over an oppression remedy under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act.

The applicant sought summary judgment requiring his former employer to return amounts withheld as hypothetical tax from post‑retirement deferred compensation payments.

The dispute concerned whether stock‑based deferred compensation received after retirement retained its character as employment income and therefore remained subject to the employer’s contractual tax equalization policy for expatriate executives.

The court held that, under the employment contract and the Income Tax Act, deferred compensation arising from employment remains employment income regardless of when it is received.

Because the applicant had agreed that employment income, including stock‑based compensation, would be subject to hypothetical tax, the employer was entitled to continue applying the policy after retirement.

The motion and underlying claim were dismissed.

The defendant bank brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing claims for negligence, breach of contract, and conversion arising from a corporate employee’s long-running cheque forgery scheme.

The bank relied on verification and limitation of liability clauses in a financial services agreement requiring the customer to review statements and report errors within 30 days.

The court held that the contractual provisions, the surrounding factual matrix, and the interaction with s. 48 of the Bills of Exchange Act raised genuine issues of fact and mixed fact and law.

Issues included the interpretation of the agreement, alleged representations made by bank officials, the plaintiff’s internal fraud controls, and whether suspicious circumstances should have alerted the bank.

As a result, the court found the matter unsuitable for summary judgment and required a trial.