3 total
Motion to set aside decision quashing appeal dismissed; Tribunal's pre-hearing evidentiary ruling was not final.
The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court.
The single judge had quashed the moving party's appeal from a pre-hearing decision of the Capital Markets Tribunal on the basis that the Tribunal's decision was interlocutory, not final.
The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge applied the correct law and made no error in concluding that the Tribunal's decision regarding the use of criminal disclosure was not a final decision.
Motion to quash appeal granted; Tribunal's evidentiary ruling was interlocutory and not subject to appeal.
The Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal of a Capital Markets Tribunal decision on the basis of prematurity.
The Tribunal had previously ruled that the Wagg process did not apply to documents the OSC obtained through its own investigation and intended to use in a merits hearing.
The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Tribunal's evidentiary ruling was an interlocutory decision, not a final decision, and therefore no appeal was permitted under s. 10(1) of the Securities Act.
The Court of Appeal upheld the appointment of a receiver and the denial of an adjournment in a securities fraud investigation.
This is an appeal from a Superior Court order appointing a receiver and manager for Go-To Developments Holdings Inc. and related entities, and continuing freeze directions, following an Ontario Securities Commission investigation into alleged securities law breaches, including misappropriation of investor funds by Oscar Furtado.
The appellants challenged the application judge's denial of an adjournment and the admission of Mr. Furtado's examination transcripts.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the adjournment denial, especially in light of fresh evidence demonstrating further misconduct by Mr. Furtado.
The court declined to address the admissibility of transcripts as the issue was not raised below.
