Ian Eliot Aversa

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents perpetrated a securities fraud and that Furtado misled the Commission, the Tribunal held a sanctions hearing.

The Tribunal found the misconduct to be very serious, though not the most egregious, as it involved a legitimate business and no registrable activity.

The Tribunal ordered 10-year market participation bans for all respondents, with a carve-out for Furtado's registered plans.

The respondents were ordered to jointly and severally disgorge $22,200,000, representing the amounts obtained from investors less redemptions and the investment of one fully informed investor.

Furtado was ordered to pay an administrative penalty of $1,000,000, and the corporate respondents $200,000 each.

Costs of $638,613.85 were awarded to the Commission.

The applicant, the Ontario Securities Commission, sought an order under section 129 of the Securities Act to appoint a receiver and manager over all assets and properties of the respondents, a group of interconnected real estate investment entities.

The Commission alleged that the respondents diverted investor equity from specific limited partnership projects to unrelated properties, contrary to the limited partnership agreements and marketing materials.

The court rejected the respondents' argument that a strong prima facie case was required, holding that the Commission only needed to show serious concerns of a breach.

Although the court ruled that investor interview transcripts were hearsay and inadmissible for the truth of their contents, it found sufficient evidence of improper fund diversion to justify the receivership.

The court appointed the receiver over all properties, declining to exempt specific properties held by secured creditors, to ensure coordinated oversight.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Oscar Furtado and his corporate entities defrauded investors in several real estate limited partnerships, traded securities without registration, and made misleading statements to the Commission.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that Furtado perpetrated a securities fraud in five ways, including failing to disclose his intent to profit from a property acquisition, redeeming units contrary to representations, and misusing assets of other partnerships.

The Tribunal also found that Furtado made misleading statements to the Commission during its investigation.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations that the respondents engaged in the business of trading securities without registration, finding they were raising capital for an underlying real estate business.

Oscar Furtado brought a motion to adjourn the merits hearing on medical and disclosure grounds, to compel further disclosure from Staff, and to keep parts of the hearing and record confidential.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment request, finding the medical evidence insufficient to establish exceptional circumstances and no delay in disclosure warranting an adjournment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the disclosure request, finding Staff met its obligations.

The Tribunal granted the confidentiality request in part, ordering redactions of specific medical details and certain exhibits to balance the open court principle with Furtado's privacy interests.

The Court-Appointed Receiver brought a motion seeking to uphold the disallowance of a claim by Oscar Furtado against Go-To Stoney Creek Elfrida LP and Inc. for guarantee fees.

The Receiver argued the fees were undisclosed, related-party agreements made in breach of Furtado's fiduciary duties and were not reasonable or competitive.

The court found that Furtado, as a fiduciary, failed to provide full disclosure of the lucrative guarantee fee arrangement to investors, as it was not adequately disclosed in the limited partnership agreement, marketing brochure, or the auditor-withdrawn financial statements.

The Receiver's disallowance of the claim was upheld.

The Court-appointed Receiver brought a motion to compel the principal of the Receivership Respondents to release approximately 11,271 emails.

The principal opposed the motion, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that the emails belonged to the corporate entities, not the principal personally, and that the Receiver was authorized under the Receivership Order to investigate the entities' affairs, which included reviewing the emails.

The motion was granted and the principal was ordered to release the emails.

The applicant, FUNG-BC Holdings Ltd., sought a bankruptcy order against Gary Man Kin Ng based on two outstanding debts: a $4 million guarantee and a $5.194 million IIROC financial penalty.

Mr. Ng disputed the guarantee debt, arguing it was covered by a prior settlement agreement and covenant not to sue with Bridging Finance Inc., and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as an abuse of process.

The court found the settlement documents unambiguously excluded the $4 million loan, and while the IIROC debt alone wouldn't suffice, it could be considered alongside the valid guarantee debt.

The court dismissed Mr. Ng's motion and granted the bankruptcy order, finding he had committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to meet significant liabilities.

The defendants were successful on a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety, with leave to amend.

The defendants sought costs of $41,979.61, relying on an offer to settle that would have allowed the plaintiff to amend his claim.

The self-represented plaintiff argued he was impecunious and that success was divided.

The court found the defendants were overwhelmingly successful and that the plaintiff's impecuniosity did not shield him from a costs award, though it was a factor in reducing the quantum.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 payable by the plaintiff.

The defendants, Facebook, Inc., Facebook Canada, Ltd., and Meta Platforms, Inc., brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's 336-paragraph, 46-page Statement of Claim.

The defendants argued the claim was frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, citing the plaintiff's history of similar lawsuits against tech companies.

The plaintiff, self-represented, denied a "litigation scheme" and argued his claims were valid.

The court, applying Rules 21.01 and 25.11, found the Statement of Claim to be overly broad, unspecific, and failing to plead material facts for various claims (e.g., facial recognition, data mining, discrimination, security breaches, private messages, data selling, scams, location data, copyright, gambling, privacy, illicit databases, trespass, conversion, competition law, consumer protection, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment).

The court struck the entire Statement of Claim but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, emphasizing the need for conciseness and material facts.

The court declined to admit evidence of other claims to prove an abuse of process, stating it would turn the motion into an evidentiary disposition.

The Superior Court of Justice considered a motion by BCIMC and Otera Capital to approve a Sale and Investor Solicitation Process (SISP) for three condominium projects (Yorkville, Clover, Halo) under receivership.

The court approved the SISP for the Yorkville project.

For the Clover project, the court declined to approve the SISP, affirming the debtor's right of redemption after Concord Land Developments acquired the debtor's shares and offered to pay out all BCIMC debt and receivership costs.

For the Halo project, the SISP was approved, but without a stalking horse bid and without restrictions on communication between bidders and stakeholders, as the debtor was not yet able to pay out the debt.

This proceeding involved competing applications for the appointment of a receiver and manager under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, and an application for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The applicants, secured creditors, sought receivership over three residential condominium projects (The Clover, Halo, and 33 Yorkville) due to significant financial irregularities, lack of transparency, and loss of confidence in the debtors' management.

The debtors opposed receivership and sought CCAA protection, proposing a share sale to Concord Group Developments and a plan to disclaim existing purchase agreements.

The court dismissed the CCAA application and granted the receivership application, finding that receivership was the preferable route.

The court emphasized the secured creditors' blocking position, the absence of a concrete CCAA plan, and the debtors' deliberate financial misconduct, which outweighed any potential benefits of a CCAA proceeding.

In an insolvency proceeding involving syndicated mortgage investments, the court-appointed trustee brought a motion to dismiss a claim by an individual and his company for fees and a priority charge against the respondents' assets.

The claimant alleged he had an oral agreement to provide services to the Investors' Committee and sought approximately $103,000.

The court found no binding contract existed as the parties had not agreed on all material terms and the claimant had insisted on a signed agreement.

The court also rejected a quantum meruit claim, finding the claimant's services were provided gratuitously while pitching for a retainer.

Finally, the court held there was no basis under statute or inherent jurisdiction to grant a retroactive priority charge for the claimant's fees.

The claim was dismissed.

The Receiver of a bankrupt masonry contractor sought directions to distribute remaining funds to a secured creditor.

A subcontractor opposed the distribution, arguing the funds were subject to a deemed trust under the Construction Lien Act and excluded from the bankruptcy estate.

The court found that the funds did not meet the certainty of subject matter required for a trust under general trust principles, as all funds were commingled in a single account.

The court ordered the funds distributed to the secured creditor.

In an insolvency proceeding involving syndicated mortgage investments, a claimant sought approximately $103,000 in fees for services allegedly provided to the Investors' Committee, along with a court-ordered priority charge against the respondents' assets.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that no binding contract was ever formed as the parties had not agreed on all material terms and the claimant had insisted on a signed agreement.

The court also rejected a claim in quantum meruit, concluding the claimant provided services gratuitously while negotiating a retainer.

Finally, the court held there was no basis in its inherent jurisdiction to grant a retroactive priority charge for the claimant's fees.

The City of Sault Ste.

Marie moved for immediate payment of Essar Steel Algoma Inc.'s outstanding and future post-filing property tax obligations, totaling approximately $10.8 million post-filing.

The court considered Algoma's precarious financial position, volatility of steel prices, and upcoming capital expenditures, including a significant blast furnace stove replacement.

While dismissing the City's motion for immediate payment of arrears, the court ordered Algoma to pay $350,000 per month for ongoing property taxes, acknowledging the City's difficulties and Algoma's assessment appeal.

The Superintendent of Financial Services initiated proceedings leading to the appointment of Grant Thornton Limited as trustee for several trustee corporations holding syndicated mortgage investments.

The trustee brought a motion seeking the appointment of KSV Kofman Inc. as receiver for six insolvent entities, an order for Mr. Davies to deliver documents, an injunction against Mr. Dennis Jewitt from communicating with investors (except for one project), approval of trustee fees, and costs against Mr. Jewitt.

The court granted the receiver appointment, the document delivery order, and awarded costs of $10,000 against Mr. Jewitt for vexatious conduct.

The request for an injunction against Mr. Jewitt was denied at this stage, with the court noting it could be revisited if his conduct continued to cause concrete impacts.

GIP Primus, L.P. and Brightwood Loan Services LLC ("GIP"), along with Portco, brought motions seeking orders for Essar Steel Algoma Inc. ("Algoma") to resume payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement, including arrears, and for a priority charge in the alternative.

The motions were based on section 11.01(a) of the CCAA, arguing that Portco provided critical services or licensed property.

The court dismissed the motions, reiterating previous findings that Portco did not provide services or a license, and that the arguments were previously decided.

The court also declined to grant a critical supplier charge under section 11.4 or the general discretion of section 11 of the CCAA, citing lack of application by the debtor, prior rulings, and potential breach of DIP loan terms and prejudice to other creditors.

The Receiver brought a motion seeking a determination on whether the estates of Redstone Investment Corporation (RIC), Redstone Capital Corporation (RCC), and 1710814 Ontario Inc. o/a Redstone Management Services (RMS) should be substantively consolidated.

RIC and RMS Investors argued for consolidation, while RCC Investors opposed it, citing a General Security Agreement (GSA) granting RCC priority over RIC's assets.

The court found the founder's (Mr. So) evidence unreliable and dismissed subjective investor state of mind as irrelevant to the consolidation analysis.

Applying the Northland factors, the court determined that the elements of consolidation were not present, as assets were segregable, financial statements were separate, and significant prejudice would result to RCC Investors if consolidation were ordered.

The motion for substantive consolidation was denied.

The Nortel group of companies filed for insolvency protection across multiple jurisdictions.

Following the sale of Nortel's assets, approximately $7.3 billion was placed in escrow.

The trial judge ordered that these lockbox funds be allocated on a pro rata basis among the various debtor estates, finding that Nortel operated as a highly integrated multinational enterprise and that the master research and development agreement did not govern allocation upon insolvency.

Several parties sought leave to appeal under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals were not prima facie meritorious, did not raise issues of significance to the practice, and would unduly hinder the progress of the proceedings.

In a receivership arising from CCAA proceedings, the moving party sought payment of post-filing collections on several assigned loans and the return of funds advanced for a failed loan transaction.

The court held the assigned loans had been absolutely and equitably assigned, and that the debtor acted only as collection agent.

Applying the constructive trust framework in Soulos, the court found the stay should preserve rather than reorder pre-filing proprietary rights, and that the post-CCAA collections could not be treated as estate property for general creditors.

The court also held the failed transaction advance was held for a specific purpose and remained subject to a trust obligation, with Quistclose trust principles supporting that result in the alternative.

The motion was granted, subject to a holdback for any amount owed by the moving party to a related entity.