Erin Hoult

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.

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.

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.

The appellant, a real estate development company, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action against the respondents regarding a request for proposals for the redevelopment of Toronto waterfront property.

The appellant's proposal was disqualified for listing an ineligible person as an advisor.

When the appellant requested reconsideration, the sponsors declined to rescind the disqualification.

The appellant argued the sponsors owed a duty of fairness in the reconsideration process and that the fairness monitor was inadequately involved.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the reconsideration process on a factual basis, without deciding the legal question of whether a duty of fairness was owed.

The plaintiff, CG Acquisition Inc., commenced an action against P1 Consulting Inc., Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (IO), and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) after being disqualified from a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss CG's claim, which was framed in tort, alleging breach of a common law duty of fairness and negligent investigation/service provision during the reconsideration of its disqualification.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no freestanding duty of fairness or care owed to a non-compliant bidder, and that the defendants' actions during reconsideration were reasonable and protected by a limitation of liability clause in the RFP.

The plaintiff, AstraZeneca Canada Inc., applied for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging a sophisticated fraud scheme involving duplicate claims and inflated drug reimbursements under AstraZeneca's patient programs.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud based on multiple suspicious factors, including a significant presence of duplicate claims, a large spike in reimbursement volumes, unusual drug claim patterns, lack of corresponding drug purchases, and frustrated audit attempts.

Applying the five requirements for a Mareva injunction, the court found full and frank disclosure, fulsome particulars of the claim, sufficient assets in Ontario, and a serious risk of asset dissipation due to the defendants' evasive actions (e.g., avoiding audits, sudden business closure, sale of an expensive car, and travel).

The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, and there was a risk of irreparable harm without the injunction.

A worldwide injunction was granted against the individual defendants and most corporate defendants, with Shepherd RX Pharmacy Inc. temporarily excluded due to insufficient evidence at this stage.

The third parties, EMK, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' third party claim for contribution and indemnity arising from a fire at a poultry processing plant.

EMK also sought a declaration that Belgian law governed the contract for the sale of a boiler to the defendants.

The court applied the closest and most substantial connection test and determined that Belgian law governed the contract.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that a fair and just determination of whether EMK had knowledge of the alleged defects under the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods could not be made prior to the trial of the main action, as it risked inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant university brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent sports organization from releasing a tribunal decision regarding a football player's eligibility.

The applicant argued that the parties had previously reached a settlement agreement wherein the respondent agreed not to pursue the eligibility complaint.

The court found it had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement under contract law.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a strong prima facie case of a binding settlement, irreparable harm to the players and the university's reputation if the injunction was denied, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The moving defendants brought a Rule 22 motion seeking determination of whether Ontario or Alberta law governed the plaintiff’s contractual and tort claims arising from a fire allegedly caused by a defective fryer and oven system supplied to an Alberta poultry processing plant.

The parties agreed that if Alberta law governed the tort claims, the claims would be statute‑barred under Alberta’s ultimate limitation period.

Applying the lex loci delicti rule from Tolofson v. Jensen, the court held that Alberta law governed the tort claims because the damage occurred in Alberta, and therefore those claims were dismissed as statute‑barred.

However, applying the “closest and most real connection” test for contractual choice of law, the court found the contract was most closely connected to Ontario, where the system was designed and supplied.

Ontario law therefore governed the contractual claims.

Following the offender's guilty pleas to fraud and money laundering, the Crown brought a forfeiture application.

Two third parties, Picard Foods Ltd. and SNC-Lavalin Profac Inc., claimed interests in the proceeds of the sale of a property.

In a previous ruling, the court found Picard was entitled to a portion of the municipal service costs.

In this final ruling, the court fixed the principal amount owing to Picard at $72,690.29, excluding carrying costs, with 10% interest payable from June 21, 2008.

The court dismissed Picard's application for costs against the Crown and ProFac, finding no Crown misconduct or exceptional circumstances to justify a costs award to a bystander in a criminal proceeding.

In six Ontario libel actions tied to statements posted by a U.S. company and later republished in Ontario newspapers, the appellants argued Ontario lacked jurisdiction or should defer to Illinois.

The Court held that defamation was presumptively connected to Ontario because publication occurred there through reading, downloading, and republication.

It concluded the appellants did not rebut jurisdiction and did not prove Illinois was clearly the more appropriate forum under forum non conveniens.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.