Harry Underwood

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision to assume jurisdiction over foreign defendants in a complex international fraud and conspiracy case.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) alleged that a Toronto resident orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate billions of dollars from Saudi Arabian corporations and dissipate them globally, with the assistance of family members and various corporate entities.

The appellants (foreign defendants) challenged Ontario's jurisdiction, arguing a lack of real and substantial connection.

The motion judge found jurisdiction based on contracts made in Ontario (including a gift deed central to the alleged scheme), property located in Ontario, and the tort of conspiracy being committed in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding factual errors or legal errors in applying the Van Breda test for jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the defendants, alleging they breached a Mareva injunction by using frozen assets to pay for living and legal expenses.

In response, the defendants brought several procedural motions.

Dr. Saad moved to strike compelled evidence from the plaintiffs' contempt motion record, arguing it violated his Charter rights against self-incrimination.

The court dismissed this motion, finding that a contempt motion is not 'other proceedings' under s. 13 and that ss. 7 and 11(c) did not apply to previously compelled evidence.

Dr. Saad also moved under Rule 21 to exclude prior judicial rulings made in the civil action from the contempt motion.

The court granted this motion, holding that findings made on a civil standard are inadmissible in a quasi-criminal contempt proceeding.

The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants to answer undertakings and produce documents.

The court ordered Dr. Saad to answer undertakings but ruled the answers could not be used in the contempt motion, and declined to order further document production that would conscript the defendants to assist in their own prosecution.

The court also limited the plaintiffs' disclosure obligations to the alleged breach, refusing broad discovery on the underlying fraud.

Finally, the court dismissed Mohammed's motion to stay the contempt proceedings pending his appeal on jurisdiction.

The proposed intervener, a shareholder of the respondent corporation and leader of an investor group, brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in an application concerning the extension of an outside date for a recapitalization transaction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener's financial interest in the outcome did not constitute a direct interest in the subject matter of the private commercial dispute.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed intervener's intended evidence regarding foreign regulatory law would not make a useful contribution to the resolution of the proceeding.

The defendants (appellants) brought a motion for a stay of a lower court order that found Ontario had jurisdiction over a complex fraud action involving alleged misappropriation of billions of dollars by a former Saudi cabinet minister and related entities.

The motion judge had established jurisdiction on five grounds, including contracts made in Ontario, a gift deed executed in Ontario, assets in Ontario, acts of conspiracy in Ontario, and a real and substantial connection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, particularly because the plaintiffs provided an undertaking not to assert attornment if the defendants participated in the Mareva injunction proceedings.

The court clarified that court-ordered participation or participation under such an undertaking generally does not constitute voluntary submission to jurisdiction.

The balance of convenience also favoured the plaintiffs due to the risk of asset dissipation.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action against them, arguing the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs alleged a massive international fraudulent scheme involving the misappropriation of $3.5 billion USD, with funds allegedly traced to the moving parties.

The court applied the Van Breda test and found a real and substantial connection to Ontario based on contracts formed in the province, property located in Ontario, and the necessity of hearing the claim as a whole in a single jurisdiction.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Physicians sought to withdraw life support from an incapable patient while the substitute decision-maker refused consent.

The Court held, by majority, that withdrawal of life support in the circumstances constituted treatment under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, 1996 and therefore required consent under the statutory regime.

The majority concluded that disputes over refusal of consent must be addressed before the Consent and Capacity Board, which may substitute its decision if statutory best-interests criteria are not met.

Dissenting reasons would have resolved the dispute under the common law rather than the statutory board process.

The appeal was dismissed, with dissent.

The three accused, former senior executives of Nortel Networks Corporation, were charged with two counts of fraud over $5,000.

The Crown alleged that they deliberately misrepresented Nortel's financial results by manipulating accrued liability balances to meet earnings targets and trigger bonus payments.

The court conducted a detailed review of Nortel's accounting practices, the use of accrued liabilities, and the restatements of its financial results.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately misrepresented the financial results or that the financial statements were materially misstated.

The accused were found not guilty on both counts.

The trustee in bankruptcy of a securities firm sought directions on how to calculate a customer's “net equity” under s. 253 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in the context of the firm’s insolvency.

The dispute concerned whether post‑bankruptcy mark‑to‑market adjustments for commodity futures contracts should be included in the calculation of the customer’s claim.

The customer argued that daily settlement obligations inherent in futures contracts required inclusion of post‑bankruptcy adjustments.

The court held that net equity must be calculated based on the liquidation value of securities positions as of the date of bankruptcy, without adjustments for post‑bankruptcy mark‑to‑market fluctuations.

The trustee’s interpretation was preferred as consistent with the statutory language and the objectives of Part XII of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.