Dina Milivojevic

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that Gabriel Kit Chun Fung knew or was willfully blind to the fact that he was purchasing stolen goods or goods fraudulently obtained by Nadia Minetto, the accounting manager of Wescom Solutions Inc. Between early 2012 and July 2014, Fung purchased approximately $6.2 million in iPhones and iPads from Minetto, who had fraudulently obtained them using Wescom's corporate credit card.

The trial judge divided the transactions into three stages and found Fung was not willfully blind in Stage 1, was willfully blind in Stage 2, and had actual knowledge in Stage 3.

The trial judge awarded damages of $5,094,767.72 plus interest.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by applying an objective standard to the wilful blindness analysis and by making adverse credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the trial judge's mischaracterization of the wilful blindness standard, the factual findings supported a subjective finding of wilful blindness.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $23,251.25 for unpaid doors.

The appellant argued the respondent fraudulently misrepresented that it would be in Ontario 'for the long run', inducing the contract.

The trial judge found no misrepresentation, preferring the respondent's evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in his factual findings.

The court also declined to hear new issues raised by the appellant on appeal, as leave was not sought under Rule 61.08(2).

The Monitor of Target Canada Co. and its affiliates, undergoing CCAA proceedings, sought advice and directions from the court regarding the treatment of several late-filed claims.

The court applied the four-part test from *Blue Range Resource Corp. Re*, considering inadvertence, good faith, and prejudice to other creditors.

The court found that five claimants (Fruits & Passion, Lou Pharma, Kulwinder Kaur Rai, Capital Brands Inc., and Mohammad Alam) satisfied the test, allowing their claims against Target Canada Co. However, claims against Target Corporation and Target Brands were barred due to the prejudice caused by disturbing the sanctioned plan and releases, which Target Corporation relied upon for its significant contributions.

The court also provided directions on distributions for allowed late claims and a framework for addressing future unknown late claims, emphasizing the finality of the sanctioned plan.

Following his criminal conviction for fraud relating to the Greyhawk Millenium investment fund, Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought permanent market bans against the respondent under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act.

The Commission found that the respondent's conviction arose from a course of conduct related to securities, as the investments met the test for an investment contract.

While the respondent's misconduct caused significant losses and involved falsified documents, the Commission noted his full cooperation and genuine remorse as mitigating factors.

The Commission ordered permanent bans on the respondent acting as a registrant, investment fund manager, or promoter, but limited the trading and director/officer bans to 10 years with exceptions allowing him to provide for his family.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking production of documents in insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful parties.

Applying the reasonableness principle and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed costs claimed by the monitor, the creditors’ committee, and the applicants.

The court rejected arguments that certain participants should receive reduced or no costs and instead fixed reasonable amounts reflecting their participation in the motion.

Costs were awarded to each successful party and ordered payable within 30 days.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the moving party sought an order requiring the Monitor to disclose all information and documents it considered when reviewing proofs of claim submitted by another creditor group.

The moving party intended to use this information at a claims hearing to argue that the claims officer should apply the same standard of proof used by the Monitor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the roles of the Monitor and the claims officer under the claims procedure order were fundamentally different, and the request constituted an impermissible collateral attack on that order.

Furthermore, the court noted that comparing claims would result in an unnecessary trial within a trial and risk disclosing confidential lending practices.

In this certified franchise class action arising from the 2009 automotive restructuring, the representative plaintiff alleged that the franchisor breached statutory duties of fair dealing, disclosure, and association when it issued wind-down agreements to affected dealers on short notice, and also alleged that class counsel acted in conflict and failed to protect the dealers' interests.

The court held that the franchisor did not breach its obligations under the Arthur Wishart Act or analogous provincial legislation, found the wind-down release enforceable as a settlement of existing and fully known claims, and dismissed the claim against the franchisor as well as the franchisor's counterclaim.

The court further held that the law firm retained for the dealer group had in fact entered into a solicitor-client relationship with the contributing dealers, that its retainer extended to pre-filing restructuring issues, and that it breached fiduciary, contractual, and tort duties by acting despite an undisclosed conflict with Industry Canada, failing to address the steering committee's internal conflict, and maintaining an unreasonable wait-and-see approach.

Applying a loss-of-chance analysis, the court found that the class lost a real and significant opportunity to negotiate collectively for higher wind-down payments and awarded aggregate damages of $45 million against the law firm.