Erin Pleet

The appellant, a foreign trustee based in Liechtenstein, appealed the dismissal of its motions to stay or dismiss two actions for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter or forum non conveniens.

The actions alleged that the principals of Bridging Finance Inc. misappropriated funds and transferred them to a trust managed by the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the tort of fraud was committed in Ontario and contracts connected to the dispute were made in Ontario.

The appellant failed to rebut these presumptive connecting factors, and the appeal was dismissed.

The bankrupt brought a repeatedly shifting motion seeking directions, stays, disclosure, and litigation “guardrails” concerning estate litigation being prosecuted or assigned by the trustee in bankruptcy.

The court held that the bankrupt lacked standing under s. 37 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act because he was not an aggrieved person, and also failed to qualify under s. 119(2) because he was not an interested person and had adduced no evidence of fraud or bad faith by inspectors.

The court further rejected the factual premise of the alleged conflict, finding no evidence of BIA “relatedness” and no basis to interfere with the trustee’s conduct of the Whitehorse Action or with case management orders made by a Superior Court judge.

The motion was dismissed with prejudice.

Because the bankrupt filed improper, late, AI-generated materials containing hallucinated or unreliable citations and made unfounded allegations against the trustee and inspectors, the trustee was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $12,366.72.

The applicant, an adjunct professor, sought judicial review of the respondent university's decision not to proceed with her complaint regarding an open letter signed by students concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The university had appointed an external reviewer who concluded the students did not breach the student code of conduct.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to decline to hear the judicial review application, finding that adequate alternative forums, such as a grievance under the collective agreement or an application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, were more appropriate to address the applicant's concerns.

The Capital Markets Tribunal issued its sanctions and costs decision against the respondents following findings of fraud and obstruction of the Commission's investigation.

The Tribunal ordered significant administrative penalties, disgorgement, and permanent market bans against the senior officers for their roles in orchestrating and participating in multiple frauds that diverted over $100 million in investor funds.

The chief compliance officer, who acted under direction and cooperated with the investigation, received a lesser administrative penalty and a 10-year market ban.

The respondents were also ordered to pay a portion of the Commission's costs.

This decision concerns motions by the Receiver for Bridging Finance Inc. and by BlackRock Funds to lift the stay of proceedings against Gary Man Kin Ng, a bankrupt, and to validate service of a Statement of Claim.

The court granted both motions, finding that the actions for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation against Ng would not be discharged in bankruptcy, involved sufficient complexity, and required Ng as a necessary party.

The court also validated service of the Statement of Claim on Ng and the Ng Entities, as Ng had actual notice.

The decision reviews the legal test for lifting a bankruptcy stay and the requirements for validating service.

The decision addresses motions by First Trust Management AG, as Trustee of The Salus Rete Trust, to stay or dismiss two related actions on the basis that Ontario lacks jurisdiction or is not a convenient forum.

The court finds that the claims are adequately pleaded, that Ontario has jurisdiction simpliciter based on several presumptive connecting factors (including contracts made in Ontario and torts committed in Ontario), and that Ontario is the most appropriate and convenient forum for the actions.

The motions are dismissed.

The defendant trustee of a Liechtenstein trust moved to stay or dismiss two related Ontario actions alleging fraud and misappropriation of funds, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was an inconvenient forum.

The plaintiffs resisted the motions, asserting that the funds used to settle the trust originated from Ontario and were transferred in breach of fiduciary duties.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because contracts connected to the dispute were executed in Ontario and the underlying torts of misappropriation occurred within the province.

The court also declined to stay the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens, concluding that Ontario was the most appropriate and efficient forum to resolve the claims.

This decision addresses three motions in the receivership of the Bridging Funds: (1) the Receiver’s motion for an interim distribution to unitholders, (2) approval of a settlement with the BlackRock Parties, and (3) the unitholders’ motion for a constructive trust.

The court approved the interim distribution but required a sufficient reserve for the disputed Cerieco claim until its final determination.

The BlackRock settlement was approved.

The constructive trust motion was deferred pending resolution of the Cerieco claim.

The decision provides detailed guidance on the treatment of creditor and unitholder claims in a complex receivership under the Securities Act.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) brought a motion under Rule 5.05 to sever certain allegations advanced by Tarion Warranty Corporation (Tarion) into two separate actions.

Tarion, along with Carlo and Dino Taurasi, opposed the motion.

TD argued that Tarion's negligence claim (related to a cheque kiting scheme) and its claim to set aside a settlement agreement as a fraudulent conveyance were discrete and temporally separate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no undue complexity, delay, or prejudice, and that the claims arose from the same series of transactions with significant factual overlap, promoting the convenient administration of justice and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Bridging Finance Inc. and its principals, David and Natasha Sharpe, along with Chief Compliance Officer Andrew Mushore, engaged in multiple frauds and conflicts of interest involving the misappropriation of investor funds.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that David and Natasha Sharpe perpetrated frauds relating to loans to entities associated with Sean McCoshen, Ninepoint Partners LP, and Gary Ng, diverting millions of dollars for their personal benefit and to facilitate the purchase of Bridging shares.

The Tribunal also found that Mushore participated in the Ninepoint fraud.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents obstructed the Commission's investigation by making false statements, creating false paper trails, intimidating witnesses, and permitting surreptitious monitoring of a compelled interview.

Bridging was found to have failed to address conflicts of interest, for which the Sharpes were deemed liable as directing minds.

The Thomas Canning Claimants appealed two procedural decisions by the Claims Officer in the Bridging Finance Inc. receivership, which denied their requests for extensive pre-hearing disclosure of documents from the Receiver and examinations of third-party witnesses.

The Claimants argued these denials were procedurally unfair and prioritized expediency over their disclosure rights.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Claims Officer's decisions were discretionary case management orders entitled to deference, and that no palpable and overriding error or failure of natural justice occurred.

The court emphasized that receivership claims processes are intended to be expeditious and summary, unlike normal civil litigation.

The moving party, a respondent in a Capital Markets Tribunal proceeding, sought an adjournment of the closing submissions timetable due to her inability to pay outstanding legal fees resulting from a receivership asset freeze.

Her counsel alternatively sought to be removed from the record for non-payment of fees.

The Tribunal dismissed both motions.

The Tribunal found that the moving party's delay in addressing the fee issue did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal refused to remove counsel from the record, concluding that doing so at the final stage of a lengthy merits hearing would cause significant disruption and harm the administration of justice.

The Trustee of the Alexander Morris Sharpe Trust sought the court's advice and directions on whether legal fees for David and Natasha Sharpe could be paid from the trust, which was established for the "sole and exclusive" benefit of their minor son, Alexander Morris Sharpe.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed, arguing the trust language was clear and restrictive.

The court ruled that the trust funds could not be used to pay the legal fees, as such payments would not be for the "sole and exclusive" benefit of the minor beneficiary, even if there was a collateral benefit.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) brought a motion seeking an order for the issuance of Letters of Request in Commissions under section 152 of the Securities Act.

The OSC required evidence from two individuals, one residing in British Columbia and one in Massachusetts, USA, for a proceeding before the Capital Markets Tribunal concerning Bridging Finance Inc. and its respondents.

The respondents did not oppose the motion.

The court granted the order, finding that the proposed witnesses had relevant evidence and that the Letters of Request and Commissions accorded with Rule 34.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents, David and Natasha Sharpe, brought motions to stay the enforcement proceeding against them, alleging abuse of process.

They argued that the Ontario Securities Commission improperly filed their compelled testimony in a court application for a receiver without obtaining a section 17 order under the Securities Act, thereby prejudicing their right to a fair hearing and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that the public availability of the compelled evidence did not prejudice their right to a fair hearing, as any potential witness tainting could be addressed through cross-examination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the Commission's conduct, while based on a mistaken interpretation of the law, was not in bad faith and did not constitute the rare and exceptional circumstances required to justify a stay of proceedings.

The applicants, David and Natasha Sharpe, sought to vary an earlier Tribunal decision that denied their request for disclosure in support of their pending motions to stay the proceeding for abuse of process.

They argued that the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in R v Haevischer, which established a 'manifestly frivolous' standard for summary dismissal of stay applications in criminal cases, changed the applicable law.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Haevischer applies specifically to criminal cases and summary dismissals of stay applications, not to disclosure requests in administrative proceedings where the onus lies on the party seeking disclosure.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought motions seeking further witness summaries from the respondents and the dismissal of the respondents' stay motions.

The respondents argued that the scheduling of these motions should be delayed pending their application for judicial review of a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal held that the judicial review application should not delay the proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled the motion for further witness summaries to be heard orally, treated Staff's motion to dismiss the stay motions as withdrawn, and set a schedule for the exchange of materials for the stay motions.

The respondents, David and Natasha Sharpe, brought a motion to adjourn their motions for a stay of proceedings, the merits hearing, and related filing dates until their judicial review application of a prior Tribunal decision is determined by the Divisional Court.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the pending judicial review application did not constitute an 'exceptional circumstance' under Rule 29(1) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal emphasized the public interest in proceeding expeditiously and noted that the mere filing of a judicial review application does not automatically warrant an adjournment.

David and Natasha Sharpe brought motions for disclosure of various documents to support their motions for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged abuse of process.

The alleged abuse was the Ontario Securities Commission's filing of their compelled testimony in a public court record for a receivership application without first obtaining a section 17 order.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the disclosure motions, finding that the Sharpes failed to establish a tenable case of abuse of process, as the disclosure occurred in a separate proceeding, did not affect the adjudicative fairness of the current proceeding, and there was no evidence of bad faith by OSC Staff.

The appellant father sought decision-making authority for the COVID-19 vaccination of his two youngest children.

The motion judge dismissed his application, relying on the mother's internet sources and the children's stated wishes, while dismissing public health information and making inappropriate historical comparisons.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by improperly admitting and weighing the mother's unreliable online evidence as expert testimony, failing to properly assess the father's public health evidence, giving undue weight to the children's influenced views, and incorrectly reversing the onus of proof.

The appeal was allowed, granting the father sole decision-making authority for the children's COVID-19 vaccination.