Chris A. Junior

This is a class action alleging financial misrepresentations in the sale of the defendant's securities.

The class comprises persons or entities who acquired securities between March 30, 2011 and November 7, 2013.

The action was certified under the Class Proceedings Act in December 2018.

The parties reached a proposed settlement whereby the defendant will pay $6,800,000 without admitting liability to resolve all claims.

The court approved the notice plan for dissemination to class members and appointed Epiq Global as the settlement administrator.

A settlement approval hearing was scheduled for December 2, 2025.

The plaintiffs/appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gorman J. dated June 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendant buyer in an aborted real estate transaction sought to have her case managed and tried together with six other similar actions involving the same developer.

The defendant raised environmental issues as a defence to the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The court dismissed the request for case management and a common trial, finding that a single 30-day trial would cause delay and that proceeding with a summary trial in the present action would be more efficient and could provide early rulings to streamline the other cases.

The appellants, directing minds and associates of two insolvent construction companies, orchestrated a false invoicing scheme to siphon tens of millions of dollars from the debtors.

The monitor and trustee sought to recover the funds as transfers at undervalue under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appellants argued that the companies were financially healthy at the time of the transfers, and that the directing mind's fraudulent intent could not be attributed to the companies under the common law corporate attribution doctrine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the corporate attribution doctrine should be applied flexibly in the bankruptcy context to impute the directing mind's fraudulent intent to the debtor corporations.

This purposive approach prevents fraudsters from benefiting at the expense of legitimate creditors and fulfills the remedial objectives of the bankruptcy legislation.

The Monitor of Bondfield Construction Company Limited and the Trustee in Bankruptcy of Forma-Con Construction brought applications under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to recover tens of millions of dollars transferred out of the debtor companies through a false invoicing scheme and an alleged fund cycling scheme.

The court found that the payments made under the false invoicing scheme were transfers at undervalue made with the intent to defraud, defeat, or delay creditors, and held the participating respondents jointly and severally liable.

The court declined to apply the strict corporate attribution doctrine from Canadian Dredge, instead imputing the directing mind's fraudulent intent to the corporate debtors to fulfill the remedial purpose of s. 96.

The Monitor's claim regarding the fund cycling scheme was dismissed for lack of evidence that the transfers lacked consideration.

The plaintiff, Thanh Nguyen, brought an action against multiple defendants, including Toronto Dominion Bank (TDB), Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG), and Thien P. Dam (a lawyer), alleging negligence related to the cashing of a Canada Savings Bond, payment of a lottery prize, and transfer of property, respectively.

TDB, OLG, and Ms. Dam brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims were statute-barred by the limitation period and that no duty of care was owed by these defendants to the plaintiff.

The court also rejected the defendants' abuse of process argument but found no genuine issue requiring a trial for the negligence claims.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) brought an application under the Personal Property Security Act for an order authorizing a private receiver to take possession and sell property of The Hockey Academy Inc. (the debtor).

The central dispute was whether rink equipment installed by the debtor became fixtures owned by the landlord, Champagne Centre Ltd. (CCL), or remained the debtor's property subject to TD's security interest.

The court interpreted the lease amendments, finding that the debtor was required to remove the rink equipment upon lease termination, which implied continued ownership by the debtor.

Consequently, TD's security interest had priority over CCL's claim.

The court granted TD possession of the equipment and ordered a reference to determine the value CCL owed TD for its wrongful use of the equipment.