Jason Michael Berall

The appellant, former CEO and chairman of Sino-Forest Corporation (SFC), appealed a trial judgment awarding damages of $2.627 billion plus $5 million in punitive damages for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellant argued that the litigation trust lacked standing to pursue claims that overlapped with class actions, that the damages award created double recovery risks, and that the transfer of assets constituted an election barring the claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding that the litigation trust held separate and distinct corporate causes of action from those of individual shareholders and noteholders in the class actions, that the damages award was properly calculated based on SFC's losses, and that no election doctrine applied.

The defendants Pöyry brought a motion seeking orders to prohibit "Releasors" from assisting the Litigation Trustee in a Singapore action and declaring that the Litigation Trustee breached a court-approved settlement agreement by pursuing claims against Pöyry in Singapore.

Pöyry argued that the Litigation Trust's claims were covered by release and bar order provisions of a prior settlement agreement in the class action.

The Litigation Trust opposed, arguing the motion breached a Standstill Agreement, was barred by res judicata, and that the Ontario court should defer to the Singapore courts on grounds of comity and forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed Pöyry's motion, accepting the forum non conveniens arguments.

It declined to provide an opinion or interpret its own settlement orders for the Singapore court, emphasizing that the Singapore court was the appropriate forum to determine the effect of the Pöyry Settlement Agreement and the Ontario court's orders on the Singapore action.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to stay an Ontario action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The action concerned a dispute over payment obligations under a Term Sheet governing an upstream oil and gas rights transaction in Iran.

The Term Sheet contained a clause providing that it would be governed by English law and that the parties agreed to attorn to the courts of England.

The motion judge had applied the strong cause test and stayed the action in favour of England.

The Court of Appeal found that the forum selection clause was not an exclusive jurisdiction clause and therefore the strong cause test did not apply.

Conducting a fresh forum non conveniens analysis, the court found that the respondents had not demonstrated that England was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The appeal was allowed and the stay was set aside.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06 or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs.

The court found that the defendants' conduct in bringing the summary judgment motion, though unsuccessful, did not meet the threshold of "unreasonable" or "bad faith" required for substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06.

The court emphasized that Rule 20.06 applies in "exceptional circumstances" involving improper conduct, not merely an arguable but unsuccessful motion.

Consequently, substantial indemnity costs were denied.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs, fixed at $85,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, after considering the complexity and importance of the motion, and the limited benefit of the work product for the remainder of the action.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of an independent contractor agreement and interference with business opportunities.

Alternatively, the defendants sought an order holding themselves liable but assessing damages based on the motion record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the termination of the agreement was justified.

The court also rejected the defendants' alternative request, noting that Rule 20.01(3) does not contemplate a defendant moving for summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff to assess damages, and that partial summary judgment was inappropriate as the issues could not be readily bifurcated.

The court determined the costs award following the dismissal of a securities class action against the defendant on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens grounds.

The successful defendant sought $696,393 in partial indemnity costs for both the jurisdiction and certification motions, while the plaintiff proposed $75,000 at most.

The court adjusted the defendant's request, particularly by removing expert fees for "efficient market" analysis deemed unnecessary.

Considering the timing of the jurisdiction motion and the impact of a prior analogous decision (Yip v HSBC Holdings) which simplified the legal analysis, the court fixed costs at $260,000, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness to the losing party under Rule 57.01(1).

The plaintiff, George Leon, brought a proposed class action in Ontario against Volkswagen AG for fraudulent misrepresentation related to the purchase of VWAG American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) and common shares on foreign exchanges.

Volkswagen AG moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, to stay it on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed the action, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario, as VWAG did not carry on business in Ontario and the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation was not committed there.

The court also found that the U.S. (for ADRs) and Germany (for common shares) were clearly more appropriate forums, emphasizing the principle of international comity in cross-border securities litigation and giving little weight to the plaintiff's asserted juridical advantages in Ontario.

The appellant appealed an order confirming a worldwide Mareva injunction against him, arguing that an Ontario court cannot grant such an injunction when the defendant has no assets in the jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the court's in personam jurisdiction allows it to grant a Mareva injunction even if the defendant has no assets in Ontario, provided it is just and convenient.

The court also upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to accept an undertaking as to damages from a foreign corporate non-party.

The applicants sought an order under the oppression remedy provisions of the OBCA to force the sale of the respondents' shares in a jointly owned corporation, alleging an irreconcilable relationship breakdown and corporate deadlock.

The applicants also sought a winding up of related corporations.

The court found that the applicant, who was the sole director and officer, continued to operate the business successfully and had manufactured the alleged deadlock to circumvent a contractual moratorium on a shotgun buy-sell provision.

The application was dismissed as the court found no oppressive conduct and no justification for a just and equitable winding up.

The defendant brought a motion for a commission to take evidence in Hong Kong for himself and five non-party witnesses.

The plaintiff opposed on grounds of jurisdiction, the test under Rule 36, and the open court principle.

The court granted the motion for the non-party witnesses, with the trial judge acting as commissioner, finding it necessary for a fair trial as these witnesses were not compellable in Ontario.

However, the motion for the defendant's own evidence to be taken on commission was dismissed, as he failed to demonstrate a sufficient reason for not attending in Toronto, given his status as a party who had attorned to the court's jurisdiction and the significant costs involved.

The court also found that the commission evidence process, with the trial judge acting as commissioner, did not offend the open court principle or jurisdictional boundaries.