Jeffrey Larry

The plaintiff by counterclaim alleged that his brokerage and stockbroker made unauthorized trades in his margin account involving highly risky derivative securities during a period of extreme market volatility, causing substantial losses and forcing him to sign a promissory note.

The court examined the relationship between a broker and client and whether a fiduciary duty arose.

The evidence showed the account was non‑discretionary, the investor was knowledgeable, and the trades were executed on the client’s instructions.

The court found the investor’s testimony not credible and concluded that the losses resulted from authorized trading decisions during volatile market conditions.

The brokerage and broker breached no contractual, fiduciary, or regulatory duties.

The applicants, a group of companies owned by Dondeb Inc., sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to enable an orderly liquidation of their assets.

The application was opposed by approximately 75% of the secured creditors, who argued for individual receiverships due to a lack of confidence in the applicants' principal and the burden of CCAA administrative costs.

The court dismissed the CCAA application, finding it unlikely that a successful plan could be developed and approved by the creditors.

Instead, the court issued a Global Receivership Order, which was supported by the opposing creditors, to achieve an orderly liquidation at a lower cost.

Following certification of a class proceeding concerning foreign exchange transactions in registered accounts, the plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle made prior to the certification motion.

The defendants argued the outcome of the certification motion was less favourable than the offer and disputed the amount of fees and disbursements claimed.

The court held that the result of the certification motion was as favourable as the plaintiffs’ offer within the meaning of Rule 49.10 and that the defendants’ objections were overly technical.

Certain fees and disbursements were reduced, but the court concluded the remaining amounts were fair and reasonable in light of the work required for the certification motion.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded from the date of the offer to settle.

The applicant, an orthodontist, was defrauded of $450,000 by his lawyer under the guise of short-term bridge financing.

The lawyer used the funds to pay off other clients, the respondents, whose trust funds he had also misappropriated.

The applicant brought an action against the respondents seeking the return of the funds, arguing they received the money knowing or being wilfully blind to the fraud.

The court found that the respondents and their lawyer had no duty to inquire about the source of the funds when they received them, as they believed it was a bona fide repayment of a loan.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for certification of a proposed class action against the defendants regarding foreign currency conversions in registered accounts.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants charged undisclosed, unnecessary, and unauthorized foreign exchange fees when converting foreign currency to Canadian dollars in RRSPs and other registered accounts.

The court found that the plaintiffs met all five criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including disclosing causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.