Erin Pleet

The respondent, former Chief Compliance Officer of Bridging Finance Inc., brought a motion for an expedited or separate merits hearing regarding the allegations against him, citing financial constraints.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and other respondents opposed the motion.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the allegations against the moving party were inextricably intertwined with those against the other respondents, and that his proposed mechanisms would not result in a just, expeditious, and cost-effective proceeding.

The respondents David and Natasha Sharpe brought motions to stay the enforcement proceeding, alleging abuse of process related to the Commission's use of compelled evidence without a section 17 order.

The Tribunal held a scheduling hearing and determined that the stay motions should be heard before the merits hearing, as the potential efficiencies outweighed the risk of duplicated effort.

The Tribunal also declined to delay the stay motions pending the outcome of a related judicial review application, citing the public interest in proceeding expeditiously.

A schedule was set for the disclosure motions, stay motions, and the merits hearing.

The moving party, David Sharpe, sought a stay of an earlier Tribunal decision that dismissed his request to keep certain portions of the adjudicative record confidential.

He sought the stay pending his application for judicial review of that decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to stay a final decision on confidentiality.

The Tribunal further held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not grant the stay because Sharpe failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in the transparency of Tribunal proceedings.

This application concerned an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, brought by a daughter (applicant) against her mother (respondent) and related corporations in a closely held family business.

The applicant alleged oppressive conduct by the respondent, specifically a debt conversion and share issue that diverted corporate revenues to the respondent and terminated the applicant's long-standing income stream.

The court applied the two-step test for oppression, finding that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of continued financial support and participation in the residual value of the corporation.

The court determined that the respondent's actions breached these reasonable expectations and constituted oppressive conduct.

Consequently, the debt conversion and share issue were set aside.

The court declined to remove the respondent as director but directed the parties to negotiate a fair resolution for ongoing payments based on their respective needs and available resources, with the option to return to court if an agreement could not be reached.

The applicant sought to revoke a section 11 investigation order after the Ontario Securities Commission publicly disclosed his compelled testimony in a receivership application without first obtaining a section 17 disclosure order.

The Tribunal held that the Commission is bound by the confidentiality provisions of section 16 and cannot publicly disclose compelled evidence without a section 17 order.

However, the Tribunal concluded that revoking the section 11 investigation order was not an appropriate remedy for the improper disclosure, as the disclosure occurred after the order was issued and revocation would be purely punitive.

The Receiver brought a motion to extend the appointment of limited partner advisory committees, approve its activities, and approve a process for appointing Representative Counsel for the Unitholders.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Retail Investors raised concerns about the independence of the proposed appointment process.

The court approved the Receiver's activities and the extension of the committees, but modified the Representative Counsel appointment process to include an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation to the court.

Following motions by both parties regarding refusals and questions taken under advisement during questioning, the Estate Trustee was largely successful.

Both parties sought costs of the motions.

The court determined the Estate Trustee's entitlement to costs as the successful party and fixed the quantum on a partial indemnity basis at $25,200, plus $500 for a prior appointment, payable by the applicant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from transferring or encumbering a partnership property without consent or court order.

The dispute arose after the plaintiff was disqualified as a partner for failing to satisfy a cash call, which he alleged was invalid.

The court characterized the requested relief as a mandatory injunction, requiring the plaintiffs to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case regarding the validity of an alleged oral agreement, the invalidity of the cash call, or oppressive conduct.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm, as damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

In a bifurcated family law and estate proceeding, both the applicant and the respondent estate brought motions to compel answers to questions refused or taken under advisement during questioning.

The central issue for the first phase of the trial was the validity and enforceability of a 1986 marriage contract.

The court ordered the applicant to produce documents relating to her prior divorce and records from her physician and counsellor, finding them relevant to her understanding of domestic contracts.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to compel the estate trustee to answer questions regarding the deceased's subsequent estate planning and relationships with lawyers, finding them irrelevant to the 1986 contract or overly broad.

The applicant sought costs of $34,160 on a full recovery basis against a third-party witness who unsuccessfully opposed a motion to be questioned prior to trial.

The third party argued he was a non-party and sought his own costs.

The court found the third party was a party for the purposes of the motion under the Family Law Rules and that the applicant was the successful party.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the respective offers to settle, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $10,000.

The tenant brought a motion seeking leave to extend the time to bring a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a previous decision quashing her appeal.

The tenant had been evicted and sought an order directing the landlord to lease her comparable premises.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the proposed motion lacked merit, as the motion judge made no error in finding the tenant failed to provide evidence supporting her requests for delay at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The motion to extend time was dismissed.

The defendant published a report criticizing the governance and contracting practices of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

The Authority, its former CAO, and a contractor sued the defendant for defamation.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act (s. 137.1).

The court dismissed the Authority's action, holding that a government entity cannot sue an individual for defamation.

The court dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' actions because they failed to show the defendant had no valid defence, as the expressions were made on occasions of qualified privilege without malice.

The Liquidator of Maple Bank GmbH's Canadian business sought an interim distribution of surplus funds to the German Insolvency Administrator (GIA) during winding-up proceedings.

The motion was unopposed.

The court approved the interim distribution, finding it appropriate given that adequate reserves were established to cover all proven and potential claims, ensuring no prejudice to Canadian creditors.

The court emphasized a broad, flexible interpretation of insolvency legislation and the policy of assisting foreign insolvency proceedings.

The applicant, HMI, brought a motion to refer a consolidated construction lien action, involving seventeen liens totaling over $42 million, to a single private arbitration and to stay the court proceedings.

The consolidated action was divided into three streams (A, B, C) based on contractual relationships.

The motion was opposed by various lien claimants and other parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a consolidated arbitration could not be ordered due to significant conflicts in arbitration clauses across the different contracts, the inclusion of third parties who had not consented to arbitration, the failure to follow contractual dispute resolution protocols (including mediation), and potential for increased costs and delays for some parties.

The court emphasized the consensual nature of arbitration and declined to impose non-consensual amendments to contracts or stay the court action.

The applicant lawyer sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing his motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved claims by investors that the applicant breached duties and knowingly assisted in breaches of trust related to mortgage investments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the motions judge's decision to require a trial for complex factual and legal issues did not give rise to a question of broad significance or general application affecting the development of the law.

The plaintiff, who was previously investigated for stock fraud and entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission, sued 67 defendants for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts.

Ten motions were brought by 64 defendants to strike the pleadings and dismiss the actions.

The court dismissed the action against the Attorney General of Ontario because the malicious prosecution claim could not succeed, as the criminal proceedings were stayed pursuant to a settlement and thus not terminated in the plaintiff's favour.

The actions against the remaining moving defendants were dismissed as an abuse of process because they attempted to re-litigate facts already settled or judicially determined in prior proceedings.

The appellant operated a property management business and appeared before the Landlord and Tenant Board on behalf of property owners without a paralegal license.

The Law Society obtained a permanent injunction prohibiting him from providing legal services.

On appeal, the appellant argued he was a 'landlord' under the Residential Tenancies Act and thus entitled to self-represent.

The Court of Appeal held that even if he met the definition of a landlord, he was providing legal services to third parties and had no right to self-represent under the Law Society Act.

The appeal was dismissed, but the injunction was narrowed to allow him to appear before the board only when he is the actual owner of the property.

Following the dismissal of a motion challenging Ontario’s jurisdiction simpliciter and asserting forum non conveniens, the successful party sought costs on a partial indemnity basis of approximately $38,000.

The court considered the reasonableness of the claimed preparation time and whether costs should include fees for both senior and junior counsel.

While acknowledging the value of mentoring junior counsel, the court held that the circumstances did not justify indemnifying the successful party for two counsel on the motion.

After assessing the complexity and importance of the motion and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court reduced the requested amount.

Costs were awarded in the amount of $30,000 all inclusive.

Following an interlocutory motion concerning amendments to pleadings and document production, the court addressed costs.

The moving party had obtained leave to amend its statement of claim and partial relief for additional document production but was unsuccessful on a privilege issue that dominated the motion.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs must be fair and reasonable in light of partial success and the relative importance of the issues.

The responding parties were found to have been successful on the principal issue argued, though their claimed costs and request for substantial indemnity were excessive.

Partial indemnity costs of $2,500 were awarded against the moving party, with no costs order involving another responding party who played only a minor role.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their amended statement of claim to add a new defendant and to compel further production of documents from several defendants.

The court granted leave to amend and ordered the corporate defendants to produce bank statements, cancelled cheques, and related financial records relevant to the impugned real estate transactions.

However, the plaintiffs’ request for production of documents contained in the real estate lawyer’s files was refused on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that privilege belongs to the clients and is not waived merely because another party places its state of mind in issue.

The fraud exception to privilege was not engaged because a prima facie case of fraud had not yet been established.