John M. Picone

The plaintiff insurance broker sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant mutual insurance company from communicating with policyholders after the termination of their brokerage agreement.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and breach of confidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any losses could be quantified and alleged reputational harm was speculative.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendant, given its regulatory obligations to communicate with its member policyholders.

A Canadian mining company detected pit wall instability and a subsequent rockslide at its premier mine in Chile.

The company did not immediately disclose these events to investors, disclosing them about a month later as part of regular updates, after which its share price dropped 16 percent.

An investor sought leave under s. 138.8(1) of the Ontario Securities Act to commence a class action for failure to make timely disclosure of a material change.

The Supreme Court of Canada, dismissing the appeal, held that the motion judge erred in interpreting 'material change' too restrictively.

The undefined terms 'change', 'business', 'operations', and 'capital' should not be constrained by dictionary definitions but applied flexibly and contextually.

The leave test requires a plausible application of the legislative provisions to the facts, not merely a plausible statutory interpretation.

On the uncontested evidence that the events impacted the company's operations, there was a reasonable possibility the action could succeed at trial.

This decision concerns competing applications for declaratory relief between the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of Canada and the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America regarding membership and voting rights in the Canadian corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge’s finding that a 2015 bylaw creating two classes of members (one voting, one non-voting) remained in force, and that a subsequent attempt to restore voting rights to personal members via federal continuance was ultra vires without a special resolution.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The court considered whether the Receiver could disclaim an agreement of purchase and sale for a condominium unit, where the purchaser (Berry) claimed entitlement to specific performance and an equitable interest in the unit.

The Receiver, supported by the senior secured creditor, sought to maximize recovery for creditors.

The court found that Berry had not paid the full purchase price, that the supplementary and "as is, where is" agreements were not enforceable, and that the equities did not support a preference for Berry over other creditors.

The Receiver was authorized to disclaim the agreements.

The Trustee, KSV Restructuring Inc., sought substantive consolidation of the estates of ProEx Logistics Inc., Guru Logistics Inc., and 1542300 Ontario Inc., as well as authorization to accept claims by Paul Randhawa and to approve the Trustee’s reports.

The court granted substantive consolidation and approved the Trustee’s reports, but declined to authorize the Trustee’s acceptance of Paul’s claims, holding that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provides a comprehensive code for the allowance and disallowance of claims, and that equity owners such as Rana Randhawa have no standing to challenge the Trustee’s decision to accept a claim.

The decision also addresses the effect of outstanding costs awards on standing and the finality of proceedings.

The Ontario Securities Commission sought approval of a settlement agreement with Kallo Inc., its CEO, and an employee.

The respondents admitted to making materially false or misleading statements regarding non-existent healthcare infrastructure contracts with African governments, contrary to s. 126.2(1) of the Securities Act.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, imposing an administrative penalty of $200,000, costs of $55,000, and various market participation bans, finding the terms reasonable and in the public interest.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding they engaged in illegal insider trading and tipping regarding Amaya Gaming Group Inc.'s acquisition of PokerStars, and imposing sanctions including market bans and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued the Tribunal erred in relying on circumstantial evidence, misapplying the law on similar fact evidence, and imposing punitive sanctions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's factual findings or inferences, and holding that the sanctions were protective and within the Tribunal's wide discretion.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for an interim stay pending an application for judicial review.

The parties sought a consent adjournment of the motion.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, ordering that the interim interim stay remain in place until the motion is heard, the application is decided, or the parties consent to lift it.

Cat Lake First Nation brought an urgent motion for an interim interim stay of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry's authorization allowing First Mining Gold Corporation to construct an 18 km winter road.

The First Nation argued the authorization was granted without adequate consultation and would irreparably harm their Aboriginal rights.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to constitutional rights, and that the balance of convenience favoured the First Nation.

The court granted the interim interim stay pending the full hearing of the motion and waived the requirement for an undertaking as to damages.

The applicant company sought an interim and interlocutory injunction to enforce a standstill agreement against its founder and largest shareholder, pending arbitration.

The respondent had issued a press release calling for the replacement of the board of directors, which the applicant argued breached the negative covenants in the agreement.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of negative covenants, irreparable harm to the company's goodwill, and a balance of convenience favoring the applicant.

The anti-SLAPP motion was dismissed because the application had substantial merit and the public interest in enforcing commercial contracts outweighed the protection of the expression.

The defendant sought to bring a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for lack of cause of action, arguing the contract's "affiliate" definition was not met.

At a case conference, the court declined to decide the complex motion, which involved contractual interpretation and surrounding circumstances.

Instead, the parties agreed to proceed with a two-day summary trial to resolve the matter more efficiently and cost-effectively.

The individual defendants, comprising management and major label directors of Re:Sound, brought motions under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike oppression claims asserted against them personally by ACTRA Performers’ Rights Society (ACTRA PRS).

ACTRA PRS alleged that the individual defendants, through their actions and inactions, caused Re:Sound to unfairly compete with ACTRA PRS, fail to adopt proper fee policies, neglect technological enhancements for equitable royalty distribution, and inadequately enforce tariffs, all for personal gain or to benefit their nominating organizations.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the oppression claims were sufficiently pleaded, not plain and obvious to fail, and did not constitute an abuse of process.

The court applied the two-prong test for personal liability in oppression claims, concluding that the defendants were sufficiently implicated in the alleged oppressive conduct and that personal liability could be a fit remedy.

The appellant, Dov Markowich, appealed the dismissal of his motion for leave to bring a statutory cause of action against Lundin Mining Corporation under the Securities Act for alleged failure to disclose a material change, and for certification of a class action.

The motion judge dismissed both.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by adopting an overly narrow interpretation of "change in the business, operations or capital" and by resolving evidentiary conflicts prematurely.

The Court clarified that "change" should be interpreted broadly, and its magnitude is relevant to materiality, not to whether a change occurred.

The appeal was allowed, leave was granted for the statutory cause of action, and the issue of class certification was remitted to the Superior Court.

The moving parties were found by the Capital Markets Tribunal to have committed insider trading and tipping, resulting in market participation bans and significant financial penalties.

They appealed the Tribunal's decision and brought a motion for a stay of the sanctions pending their appeals.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the moving parties failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court also held that the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in enforcing securities regulations and maintaining market integrity.

The Capital Markets Tribunal issued its reasons and decision on sanctions and costs following a merits decision that found the respondents engaged in insider trading, tipping, and misleading Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission.

The Tribunal imposed significant market participation bans ranging from 3 to 15 years, administrative penalties totaling $2.95 million, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains totaling over $1.4 million, and costs of approximately $735,000.

The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of insider trading and tipping, noting that such conduct undermines investor confidence and the integrity of the capital markets.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Plateau Energy Metals Inc. made misleading statements in news releases and filings regarding the status of its mining concessions in Peru, and that its CEO and CFO authorized or acquiesced in these contraventions.

Staff also alleged the CEO made selective disclosure to certain shareholders.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein the respondents agreed to pay administrative penalties totaling $750,000 and investigation costs totaling $300,000.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was in the public interest.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated April 24, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The moving parties, representing U.S. class action claimants, sought leave to appeal a supervising judge's order in a CCAA proceeding.

The supervising judge had dismissed their motion seeking to be treated as unaffected creditors or to have an expedited adjudication of their claims prior to a creditor vote.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious and did not raise issues of significance to the insolvency practice.

The Court emphasized the high level of deference owed to a CCAA supervising judge's discretionary decisions balancing stakeholder interests.

In a CCAA proceeding, the court considered supplementary written submissions regarding the appropriateness of differential consideration offered to unsecured creditors in the proposed Plan.

The court accepted the applicants' submission that the fairness of the differential consideration, which involves providing shares to Term Loan Lenders and cash to General Unsecured Creditors, should be determined at the Sanction Hearing rather than at the Meetings Order stage, given the low threshold for a Meetings Order and the presence of conflicting expert reports.

The Applicants sought an Authorization Order and Meetings Order under the CCAA.

The primary issues in dispute concerned the voting rights and classification of Litigation Claimants, which included uncertified U.S. class actions, a certified Ontario class action, and Texas mass tort claims.

The court held that the Litigation Claimants are creditors entitled to vote, but restricted them to one vote per action to prevent them from overriding other stakeholders on numerosity grounds.

The court also ordered summary proceedings to value their claims rather than accepting the Applicants' proposal to value them at $1.

Finally, the court declined to place the Term Loan Lenders in a separate class from other unsecured creditors, finding sufficient commonality of legal interests.