Elissa Sinha

The applicant, a former IIROC registrant, sought a hearing and review of an IIROC hearing panel decision that found he failed to use due diligence to ensure investment recommendations were in accordance with clients' risk tolerances.

The applicant argued the IIROC panel erred by making findings in the absence of certain missing documents and by relying on the unqualified expert opinion of an IIROC investigator regarding the risk of various securities.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had made no effort to obtain the missing documents and had not objected to their absence at the IIROC hearing.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the investigator's evidence regarding the risk of the securities was factual, based on the applicant's own admissions, the firm's ratings, and issuer prospectuses, and did not constitute expert opinion evidence.

A pharmaceutical company brought summary judgment motions against banks for conversion after an employee fraudulently issued corporate cheques payable to entities with names similar to legitimate customers and deposited them into accounts he controlled.

The banks asserted statutory defences under the Bills of Exchange Act, including the fictitious payee rule and the holder in due course provision, and advanced negligence-based counterclaims and equitable set-off.

The court held the payees were plausibly identifiable real entities and therefore not fictitious or non‑existent for the purposes of s. 20(5) of the Act.

It further found that s. 165(3) did not apply because the cheques were not delivered to authorized persons entitled to them.

The negligence-based counterclaims and related defences were barred by the strict liability regime governing cheque conversion.

Following a successful motion by the moving party in a proceeding under the Business Corporations Act (Ontario), the court addressed the appropriate quantum and scale of costs.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs are exceptional and reserved for rare cases involving outrageous litigation conduct, which was not established.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the fairness principles articulated by the Court of Appeal, the court reduced the requested amount due to duplication of effort and counsel learning time following a change of lawyers.

A respondent brought a motion to stay or consolidate an application seeking enforcement of a “clawback” provision in a unanimous shareholders’ agreement pending determination of several related proceedings, including a wrongful dismissal action and oppression claims.

The court considered the principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing consolidation and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.

The court found that the issues raised in the clawback application were inextricably intertwined with the issues in the related proceedings, including allegations of oppression, breach of the shareholders’ agreement, and the consequences of changes in employment status.

Separate adjudication would risk duplication of evidence, inconsistent findings, and inefficient use of judicial resources.

The motion was granted and the application was ordered to be heard together with the related proceedings.

During a summary judgment motion involving a mini-trial, the motions judge ordered that a paragraph in the self-represented respondent's affidavit be treated as a counterclaim for one million dollars against the appellant bank.

The bank appealed this order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, holding that an appeal of a ruling made during a summary judgment motion should normally await the completion of the motion, similar to rulings made during a trial.