Jonathan Bryce Grayson Bell

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fraud action for inordinate and inexcusable delay spanning over nine years.

The plaintiff attributed delays to corporate restructurings, database corruption, and translation requirements.

The court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable, noting the plaintiff's responsibility to advance the action and the lack of compelling reasons for the multi-year inaction.

The court also found a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible due to fading memories of critical viva voce evidence, especially given the fraud allegations.

The motion was granted, and the action dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion on the basis of forum non conveniens, the Litigation Trust and the Class sought costs.

The court awarded the Class $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis for maintaining a watching brief.

The court awarded the Litigation Trust full indemnity costs of $208,590.73, finding that the defendants' motion was captured by the Standstill Agreement between the parties, which provided for full indemnity costs in the event of a breach.

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.

A minority shareholder of the respondent company brought an application under s. 127 of the Securities Act seeking to block a going-private transaction structured as a plan of arrangement.

The applicant alleged the controlling shareholders improperly relied on the 90 percent exemption from minority approval requirements by engaging in a multi-step strategy to dilute minority interests.

The Commission dismissed the application for standing, finding that the applicant delayed in bringing the application, failed to establish a prima facie case of abusive conduct, and had adequate alternative remedies under the CBCA to address concerns regarding price and fairness.

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 applicant, a chartered accountant, sought judicial review of an Appeal Committee decision that revoked his licence for professional misconduct related to a tax minimization plan.

The applicant argued the Appeal Committee applied the wrong standard of review and impermissibly interfered with the Discipline Committee's findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Appeal Committee correctly applied a reasonableness standard and did not overturn factual findings, but rather reasonably concluded that the applicant's reliance on a colleague's tacit approval of the plan did not excuse his misconduct.

Victims of a Ponzi scheme sued the bank used by the fraudster, alleging negligence and knowing assistance in breach of trust for failing to shut down the fraudster's accounts.

The court held that the plaintiffs did not prove their investments were held under an express trust, and the evidence did not establish that the bank had actual knowledge of the fraud or its moral equivalents of wilful blindness or recklessness.

Applying Livent and prior banking-fraud authorities, the court further declined to recognize a novel duty of care owed by a bank to third-party victims based only on constructive knowledge of a customer's fraud.

The action was dismissed in full.

A partner in a national accounting firm was called into a meeting and told to retire after 22 years of partnership.

The firm later invoked a partnership agreement provision allowing the policy board to request a partner's resignation if it unanimously determined it was in the partnership's best interest.

The partner sued for breach of the partnership agreement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding that the firm breached the agreement because the policy board did not make an independent determination based on evidence, and the decision was predetermined by the CEO.

The court awarded expectation damages for lost profits and retirement benefits, plus aggravated damages for reputational harm.

The firm appealed, but the appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Allen Tak Yuen Chan, brought a motion to permit the liquidation and transfer of funds from Hong Kong bank accounts, frozen by a worldwide Mareva injunction, to pay for his legal fees and disbursements in defending the proceedings.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendant had other available funds and was engaged in fraudulent conduct.

The court applied the four-factor test from *Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Credit Valley Institute of Business and Technology*, finding that the defendant had met the test for accessing non-proprietary assets to cover reasonable legal costs.

The motion was granted, subject to the Hong Kong Court's decision regarding its own non-dissipation order over the same funds.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to set aside a worldwide Mareva injunction.

The injunction was originally granted ex parte in an action alleging the defendant perpetrated a massive fraud while CEO of Sino-Forest Corporation.

The Divisional Court denied leave on the issues of whether there was a prima facie case of fraud and risk of asset dissipation.

However, the court granted leave to appeal on three questions: whether an Ontario court can grant a Mareva injunction when the defendant has no assets in the jurisdiction, whether the undertaking as to damages provided by a non-party was sufficient, and whether that undertaking adequately protected the defendant's costs.

This is a costs ruling following a motion where the moving parties sought to remove Miller Thomson as counsel for the applicants and prohibit them from acting in other disputes.

The court granted the removal but denied the broader prohibition, resulting in mixed success.

The moving parties sought costs of $12,365.80 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the mixed success on the motion and factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Given the partial success, the court awarded fixed costs of $6,000.00 all inclusive.

The plaintiff, a partner at the defendant accounting firm, was forced to retire after the firm's CEO decided to reduce the number of partners due to an economic downturn.

The firm's policy board subsequently voted to compel his resignation under a provision of the partnership agreement allowing expulsion in the best interests of the partnership.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the policy board did not genuinely determine the issue but merely rubber-stamped the CEO's predetermined decision.

The court held that the expulsion was invalid and awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages for lost profits and retirement benefits, as well as aggravated damages for reputational harm.

The applicants in CCAA proceedings sought an extension of the Stay Period to April 15, 2016, as they prepared an Amended and Restated Plan of Compromise.

The court found the parties were working in good faith and with due diligence, and granted the extension.

The court also approved an agreement to lift the Co-Tenancy Stay on acceptable terms and extended the Notice of Objection Bar Date.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

In a CCAA restructuring proceeding, stakeholders sought disclosure of a settlement agreement between U.S. Steel, its Canadian subsidiary, and the Attorney General of Canada regarding undertakings under the Investment Canada Act.

The CCAA judge held that the agreement was entirely privileged under s. 36 of the ICA.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that while s. 36(5) protects the Crown from being compelled to disclose the agreement, this protection does not extend to the private corporations.

The appeal was allowed, and the issue of whether common law settlement privilege barred disclosure was remitted to the CCAA judge.

In a securities class action arising from the collapse of a forestry company, the plaintiffs sought approximately $2.6 million in costs following certification and leave motions brought under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act.

Several defendants argued that costs should not be awarded because the plaintiffs had already recovered legal expenses through settlements with other defendants and because the claimed costs were excessive.

The court held that the plaintiffs were largely successful but not entirely successful due to an unresolved assignment issue affecting certain class members.

The court also ruled that disbursements could not be recovered again because they had already been indemnified through settlements.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered a hybrid costs award: part payable immediately and part payable in the cause.

Various parties brought motions seeking reconsideration or clarification of a prior joint allocation decision determining the distribution of $7.3 billion in escrow among debtor estates in multinational insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties argued that aspects of the allocation methodology—including treatment of bond guarantee claims, certain asset sale proceeds, intercompany claims, tax claims, and settled claims—required amendment or clarification.

The court reiterated that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and rejected most requests because the issues either had been addressed at trial or could have been raised earlier.

Limited clarification was granted regarding the treatment of bondholder claims against guarantors and recognition of certain court‑approved settled pre‑filing claims that had been paid.

Other requested clarifications or amendments were denied.

In this proposed securities class action arising from the collapse of a public issuer, the plaintiffs sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certification of claims on behalf of purchasers of notes and shares in the primary and secondary markets.

Subject to one contested issue concerning former noteholders who had assigned their notes during the class period, the motions were unopposed or proceeded on consent.

The court granted leave and certified the action, holding that the substantive dispute over whether assigned noteholder claims vested in transferees under New York law should be postponed until after certification.

The court found it procedurally preferable and fair to defer that merits issue until after a defence was delivered, thereby avoiding interlocutory delay in a large and complex class proceeding.