Greg Temelini

The applicant invested in three commercial properties structured as trust arrangements with the respondents.

Following an Ontario Securities Commission investigation into the respondents for trading unregistered securities, the respondents were ordered to rectify deficiencies.

The respondents unilaterally terminated the applicant's investment agreements and purported to divest his units using a formula that did not provide fair market value, claiming this returned him to his pre-investment position.

The applicant sought relief for breach of contract and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court found that the respondents breached the agreements and acted oppressively by unfairly prejudicing the applicant's interests.

The court ordered the respondents to pay fair market value for the units as of the date the applicant stopped making payments, and established a valuation process.

This appeal concerns the interpretation and application of section 76(5)(e) of the Securities Act regarding insider trading and tipping liability for successive tippees.

The appellants received material non-public information about a takeover bid for Masonite International Corporation through a chain of tippers.

The core issue is whether successive tippees who did not have actual knowledge that their source was in a special relationship with the issuer "ought reasonably to have known" this fact.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Securities Commission's findings against Miller but reversed the Divisional Court's decision to overturn findings against Cheng, restoring the OSC's liability and sanctions determinations.

The applicant, Franklin Konopaski, sought remedies under sections 207 (winding up) and 248 (oppression) of the Business Corporations Act against his son, Michael Konopaski, and their jointly owned corporations, following an irrevocable breakdown in their business and personal relationship.

The court found that the required trust and confidence between the business partners no longer existed.

The appropriate remedy was an order for Michael to purchase Franklin's interest in their joint enterprise at fair market value, and an equalization of commissions from their investment business for the period of September 2014 to June 2016.

The court determined the valuation date to be June 30, 2016, and rejected the inclusion of Michael's solely owned professional corporations in the joint enterprise valuation, as well as the continued sharing of Michael's CFO salary.

The appellant operated a truck stop on Highway 17 that was effectively put out of business when the province constructed a new section of Highway 417, severely restricting access to the property.

The Ontario Municipal Board awarded compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The Court of Appeal set aside the award, finding the Board failed to adequately balance competing rights and to recognize the elevated importance of public utility.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that reasonableness of interference must focus on whether the individual claimant has shouldered a disproportionate share of the burden of construction, not on whether the public benefit outweighs private harm.

The Board's decision was restored.

An investor sued a discretionary portfolio manager and its representatives for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract after the manager failed to promptly diversify an inherited, highly concentrated equity portfolio heavily weighted in Nortel, BCE, and TD shares.

The court found the manager knew diversification was the client's objective but failed to implement it or clearly communicate any staged diversification strategy or associated risks.

The court held that maintaining the concentrated portfolio for several months without proper disclosure or client agreement breached the manager’s duties of care and contractual obligations.

However, individual defendants without trading authority were not liable.

Damages were assessed based on a diversified portfolio consistent with the client’s Investment Policy Statement.