Cameron Rempel

The appellant, a corporate officer and sole director, appealed a judgment finding him personally liable for civil fraud arising from his company's failure to deliver 3 million NIOSH certified N95 masks during the COVID-19 pandemic to a Quebec hospital network, after receiving over US$11 million in advance payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the correct threshold for recklessness in finding civil fraud and that the law clearly supports personal liability of officers and directors for fraudulent conduct, without needing to assess whether the conduct was "tortious in itself" or exhibited a "separate identity or interest."

The plaintiff purchaser sought specific performance of a failed real estate transaction for commercial property.

The transaction did not close on the scheduled date because the purchaser's wire transfer arrived the following day.

The vendor refused to close, relying on the 'time is of the essence' clause.

The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to relieve against the strict time provision, finding the vendor acted unfairly by remaining silent when the purchaser proposed a direct deposit, only to reject it shortly before the closing time.

The court ordered specific performance, concluding the property was unique to the purchaser's business needs and damages would be an inadequate remedy.

The appellant, a former employee, appealed the dismissal of his anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and sought leave to appeal a $50,000 costs award.

The appellant had made threats to communicate damaging information to the respondent's clients and the Ministry of Transportation if unpaid wage claims were not satisfied.

The motion judge found that the appellant's communications were fundamentally about his employment dispute rather than matters of public interest, and that the respondent would easily prove the statements were false and harmful.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's analysis under s. 137.1(3) or s. 137.1(4)(b), and affirmed the costs award.

The Ontario Securities Commission appealed an order appointing a receiver over Cacoeli Asset Management and related entities pursuant to section 129(1) of the Securities Act.

The appellants argued that the appointment of a receiver requires a strong prima facie case of breaches of the Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, holding that the correct evidentiary standard is a serious concern that there have been possible breaches of the Act.

The court found that the OSC had met this standard based on evidence that funds raised from investors for specific projects were diverted to other purposes without investor disclosure or consent.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment in which the court found Yahya Dikeni Hashiru liable for unjust enrichment in the amount of $713,089 and Spotless Consultancy Inc. liable for fraud in the amount of $2,726,050 plus punitive damages of $250,000.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs of $100,000 against both defendants.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $100,000 against Spotless based on the fraud finding, but awarded only $60,000 against Hashiru on a lesser scale given that the successful claim was for unjust enrichment rather than fraud.

The court also ordered a post-judgment Mareva injunction in aid of execution for 9 months and granted tracing orders regarding two Ghanaian entities.

The court considered a motion by the Defendants for security for costs against the Plaintiff Beijing Hehe Fengye Investment Co. Limited (BHF) in a high-value commercial litigation.

The court reviewed the legal framework under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the justness of ordering security, the merits of the claim, and the financial circumstances of the parties.

The court found that BHF did not have sufficient assets in Ontario, and the claims of BHF and co-plaintiff Rong Kai Hong were not joint such that one could satisfy the other's costs.

The court ordered BHF to post $140,000 as security for costs, balancing the interests of both parties and ensuring access to justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ motion for a stay of a receivership order appointing a receiver under section 129 of the Securities Act.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The decision reviews the background of the receivership, the test for a stay, and the evidence presented, ultimately concluding that the public interest and interests of third parties, including mortgagees, would be harmed by a stay.

The applicant, the Ontario Securities Commission, sought an order under section 129 of the Securities Act to appoint a receiver and manager over all assets and properties of the respondents, a group of interconnected real estate investment entities.

The Commission alleged that the respondents diverted investor equity from specific limited partnership projects to unrelated properties, contrary to the limited partnership agreements and marketing materials.

The court rejected the respondents' argument that a strong prima facie case was required, holding that the Commission only needed to show serious concerns of a breach.

Although the court ruled that investor interview transcripts were hearsay and inadmissible for the truth of their contents, it found sufficient evidence of improper fund diversion to justify the receivership.

The court appointed the receiver over all properties, declining to exempt specific properties held by secured creditors, to ensure coordinated oversight.

This costs endorsement follows an unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendant, a former employee, who had made damaging and unsubstantiated allegations against the plaintiff, his former employer.

The court found the defendant's campaign of correspondence to be extortionate and awarded the plaintiff $50,000 in costs, exercising discretion under the Courts of Justice Act.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) applied for the appointment of a receiver over the respondents under section 129 of the Securities Act.

The parties sought directions from the court regarding non-disclosure obligations under sections 16 and 17 of the Act, particularly concerning the production and use of investigation materials.

The court endorsed a protocol allowing redacted and unredacted affidavits to be filed, balancing the need for confidentiality with the respondents’ right to make full answer and defence.

The court also addressed scheduling and adjournment of the application, confirming the interim monitorship and setting a new hearing date.

The court dismissed an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Zhou Chen, a former employee of Diverse Transportation, who had sent disparaging messages to Diverse’s customers linking payment demands to allegations of misconduct.

The court found that Chen’s communications were not genuinely in the public interest but were instead a façade for a private employment dispute and debt collection.

The decision clarifies the threshold for public interest under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and affirms that anti-SLAPP protections do not extend to private disputes disguised as matters of public concern.

The court-appointed Receiver sought approval for the sale of a property owned by the Debtor, 253 Queen Street Inc., and an Administration Order.

The sale was supported by secured creditors Homedale-Eagle Corporation and Sky Mortgage Corporation but opposed by the Debtor and its equity holders.

The opposing parties argued the purchase price was too low, the environmental indemnity was not assumed by the purchaser, and their beneficial interest in the property was not recognized.

The court applied the Soundair principles for approving sales in receivership, finding the Receiver acted providently and fairly.

The court rejected the claims of beneficial ownership based on trust law and the Land Titles Act, affirming the priority of registered mortgages over unregistered beneficial interests.

The Receiver's motion for approval of the sale and the Administration Order was granted.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that granted declaratory relief to the respondents and dismissed the appellants' counterclaim for fees.

The appeal focused on whether management agreements were unauthorized and if the respondents were estopped from arguing their invalidity.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's interpretation of the agreements or her finding on estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was also dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action and refer the dispute to arbitration in Dubai, relying on the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017.

The dispute involved a shareholding agreement for a radiology clinic in Dubai, which contained an arbitration clause, and a related one-page guarantee document.

The court found that the claims arguably fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator should determine their own jurisdiction.

The motion was granted and the action was stayed.

This endorsement addresses a contempt motion brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for non-compliance with a prior trial decision, and a cross-motion by the defendants to stay the contempt motion due to alleged Charter breaches by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for several failures to comply with the original order, including withholding records and refusing to execute necessary assignments.

However, the court also found that the plaintiffs committed Charter breaches (failure of timely disclosure and case splitting) in their prosecution of the contempt motion, which curtailed the evidence that could be relied upon.

The stay motion was dismissed, but the scope of contempt findings was limited due to the excluded evidence.

The court ordered the defendants to comply with outstanding obligations within 30 days.

The defendants by counterclaim (West Face Capital Inc., Gregory Boland, and Bruce Langstaff) moved for a Mareva injunction to prevent the plaintiffs by counterclaim (The Catalyst Capital Group Inc., Callidus Capital Corporation, and Newton Glassman) from removing assets from Ontario.

The moving parties alleged that Mr. Glassman was relocating to the Bahamas and dissipating assets to avoid potential judgments arising from a massive corporate espionage and defamation campaign.

The court found that while the moving parties established a strong prima facie case of deceitful and tortious conduct by Mr. Glassman, they failed to prove a real risk that assets were being removed with the specific intent to defeat creditors.

The court also found the moving parties delayed in bringing the motion and failed to establish irreparable harm.

The motions for a Mareva injunction were dismissed.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs, a lawyer and his law firm, failed to file responding evidence, a factum, or appear at the hearing.

The court found the claim deficient, confusing, and lacking material facts for the pleaded torts.

The motion was granted, the statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants on a substantial indemnity basis due to the frivolous and vexatious nature of the pleading and the plaintiffs' non-compliance with court orders.

The plaintiffs, limited partners in three real estate development limited partnerships, sought declarations validating their special resolutions to remove and replace the original general partners.

The dispute arose after the original general partners issued capital calls to pay management fees to an affiliated company, which the plaintiffs argued were unauthorized.

The court found the capital calls were invalid as the management agreements were not approved by special resolution and the general partners failed to seek external financing first.

The court upheld the plaintiffs' special resolutions removing the original general partners due to multiple unremedied defaults, including failure to provide access to financial records, co-mingling of funds, and unauthorized related-party transactions.

The defendants' counterclaims were dismissed.

This motion concerned an application by 2524991 Ontario Corporation (252) for an interim order to stay the enforcement of an arbitral award (the Final Award) obtained by 2650795 Ontario Inc. (265), pending the resolution of an oppression action brought by 252 against 265. 252 argued that 265 engaged in oppressive acts by refusing to cooperate in the sale of a jointly owned property, which would allow 252 to satisfy the Final Award.

The court granted judgment in the Enforcement Application by consent but then heard 252's motion to stay.

The court found that allowing enforcement would be oppressive and an abuse of process, and that 252 met the stringent test for a stay under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act and the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for interim relief under s. 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act.

The court also determined that the "clean hands" doctrine did not apply as the impugned conduct (misrepresentation) was already litigated and compensated in arbitration.

The stay was granted, without prejudice to a future application for a court-directed sale of the property.

The plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory injunctive relief and a certificate of pending litigation was dismissed.

The defendants and non-party Project Companies sought costs.

The plaintiffs opposed an award of costs or argued for a reduced amount, but failed to provide their own costs outline.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments to deny costs or defer them to the trial judge.

Applying the principle that an attack on costs without providing one's own dockets is an 'attack in the air,' the court found the claimed amounts reasonable and awarded partial indemnity costs of $65,000 to the defendants and $39,000 to the Project Companies.