Jonathan Chen

The appellants sought to overturn Tribunal decisions refusing production of documents for abuse of process stay motions and denying a stay of securities enforcement proceedings arising from unlawful disclosure of compelled examination evidence in related receivership proceedings.

Applying appellate standards of review and the abuse of process framework, the court held that the Tribunal did not err in requiring a threshold showing for disclosure, in refusing to adopt the criminal-law summary dismissal threshold from Haevischer, or in concluding there was no tenable abuse of process case warranting disclosure.

The court further held that the unlawful disclosure, while serious, did not establish prejudice to trial fairness or to the integrity of the justice system that would be manifested, perpetuated, or aggravated by continuing the enforcement hearing, and that the grave public interest in adjudicating the securities fraud allegations strongly weighed against a stay.

One sanction issue succeeded only to correct the joint and several disgorgement amount from $2 million to $1.965 million.

The appellant City of Hamilton appealed a trial judgment finding it and ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc. (AMD) jointly and severally liable for damages arising from periodic flooding of the respondent National Steel Car Limited's industrial property caused by wastewater discharge into a clogged drainage channel.

The trial judge awarded compensatory damages of approximately $5.3 million (apportioned equally between the defendants), punitive damages of $400,000 against the City and $500,000 against AMD, and granted a mandatory injunction requiring remediation and maintenance of the channel.

The City appealed on four grounds: (1) the equal apportionment of liability; (2) failure to find mitigation by National; (3) the punitive damages award; and (4) the terms of the injunction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal except for a clarification to the injunction language.

The Capital Markets Tribunal issued its sanctions and costs decision against the respondents following findings of fraud and obstruction of the Commission's investigation.

The Tribunal ordered significant administrative penalties, disgorgement, and permanent market bans against the senior officers for their roles in orchestrating and participating in multiple frauds that diverted over $100 million in investor funds.

The chief compliance officer, who acted under direction and cooperated with the investigation, received a lesser administrative penalty and a 10-year market ban.

The respondents were also ordered to pay a portion of the Commission's costs.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Bridging Finance Inc. and its principals, David and Natasha Sharpe, along with Chief Compliance Officer Andrew Mushore, engaged in multiple frauds and conflicts of interest involving the misappropriation of investor funds.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that David and Natasha Sharpe perpetrated frauds relating to loans to entities associated with Sean McCoshen, Ninepoint Partners LP, and Gary Ng, diverting millions of dollars for their personal benefit and to facilitate the purchase of Bridging shares.

The Tribunal also found that Mushore participated in the Ninepoint fraud.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents obstructed the Commission's investigation by making false statements, creating false paper trails, intimidating witnesses, and permitting surreptitious monitoring of a compelled interview.

Bridging was found to have failed to address conflicts of interest, for which the Sharpes were deemed liable as directing minds.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of two easements: a 15-foot wide right-of-way for ingress and egress, and a right-of-access to a well.

The appellants (servient tenement owners) sought declarations that the right-of-way did not include vehicular turnaround activity and that the well access was null and void.

The respondents (dominant tenement owners) sought declarations affirming their rights, an injunction against obstructions, and damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the right-of-way included the turnaround area based on latent ambiguity and ancillary rights, and that the right-of-access to the well had not been extinguished.

The moving party, a respondent in a Capital Markets Tribunal proceeding, sought an adjournment of the closing submissions timetable due to her inability to pay outstanding legal fees resulting from a receivership asset freeze.

Her counsel alternatively sought to be removed from the record for non-payment of fees.

The Tribunal dismissed both motions.

The Tribunal found that the moving party's delay in addressing the fee issue did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal refused to remove counsel from the record, concluding that doing so at the final stage of a lengthy merits hearing would cause significant disruption and harm the administration of justice.

The Trustee of the Alexander Morris Sharpe Trust sought the court's advice and directions on whether legal fees for David and Natasha Sharpe could be paid from the trust, which was established for the "sole and exclusive" benefit of their minor son, Alexander Morris Sharpe.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed, arguing the trust language was clear and restrictive.

The court ruled that the trust funds could not be used to pay the legal fees, as such payments would not be for the "sole and exclusive" benefit of the minor beneficiary, even if there was a collateral benefit.

This decision addresses a motion for partial indemnity costs arising from a successful pleadings motion brought by the defendants.

The plaintiffs, whose statement of claim was found deficient, sought costs themselves or costs in the cause, arguing mixed success.

The court determined that the defendants were substantially successful, as several claims were struck, some without leave to amend.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, emphasizing that a deficient pleading necessitated the defendants' motion.

Costs were fixed in favour of the defendants, payable by the plaintiffs.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the court-appointed Monitor sought a Mareva injunction against a former executive, his company, and his spouse.

The Monitor alleged that the executive had misappropriated millions of dollars from the insolvent companies for personal use, including purchasing a yacht, private jet fractional interests, and real estate, while failing to remit significant taxes.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against the executive and his company, and inferred a real risk of asset dissipation given their ties to St. Lucia.

An uncapped Mareva injunction was granted against them.

However, the court found insufficient evidence of actual knowledge to establish a strong prima facie case of knowing assistance or receipt against the spouse, and instead ordered her to provide a statement of worldwide assets.

This is a pleadings motion brought by the defendants to strike various causes of action and allegations from the plaintiffs' statement of claim, including claims for piercing the corporate veil, fraud, breach of court orders, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, oppression, and conspiracy.

The court considered the legal sufficiency of the pleadings under Rule 21.01(1)(b) and Rule 25.11, and the possibility of granting leave to amend.

The court struck claims for breach of court orders, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy without leave to amend, finding they disclosed no reasonable cause of action or were frivolous/vexatious.

Claims for fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and oppression were struck with leave to amend, as the plaintiffs might be able to plead sufficient material facts.

The claim to pierce the corporate veil against individual defendants for fraudulent conduct was found sufficiently pleaded, but a declaration to treat corporate plaintiffs as one defendant was struck.

Allegations of false affidavits were struck due to absolute privilege, but allegations of pressuring employees to provide false statements were not.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from terminating an agreement for the supply of water and wastewater treatment services.

The defendant had threatened to terminate the services on 60 days' notice unless the plaintiffs paid a massive retroactive price increase.

The court found that the injunction was prohibitory, but that the plaintiffs had met the higher standard of a strong prima facie case regardless.

The court held that the defendant's use of the termination clause to extort a unilateral price increase was a strong prima facie breach of the duty of good faith performance.

Finding irreparable harm and a balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs, the court granted the injunction for nine months to allow the plaintiffs to build their own water recycling facilities.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) brought a motion seeking an order for the issuance of Letters of Request in Commissions under section 152 of the Securities Act.

The OSC required evidence from two individuals, one residing in British Columbia and one in Massachusetts, USA, for a proceeding before the Capital Markets Tribunal concerning Bridging Finance Inc. and its respondents.

The respondents did not oppose the motion.

The court granted the order, finding that the proposed witnesses had relevant evidence and that the Letters of Request and Commissions accorded with Rule 34.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents, David and Natasha Sharpe, brought motions to stay the enforcement proceeding against them, alleging abuse of process.

They argued that the Ontario Securities Commission improperly filed their compelled testimony in a court application for a receiver without obtaining a section 17 order under the Securities Act, thereby prejudicing their right to a fair hearing and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that the public availability of the compelled evidence did not prejudice their right to a fair hearing, as any potential witness tainting could be addressed through cross-examination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the Commission's conduct, while based on a mistaken interpretation of the law, was not in bad faith and did not constitute the rare and exceptional circumstances required to justify a stay of proceedings.

The applicants, David and Natasha Sharpe, sought to vary an earlier Tribunal decision that denied their request for disclosure in support of their pending motions to stay the proceeding for abuse of process.

They argued that the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in R v Haevischer, which established a 'manifestly frivolous' standard for summary dismissal of stay applications in criminal cases, changed the applicable law.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Haevischer applies specifically to criminal cases and summary dismissals of stay applications, not to disclosure requests in administrative proceedings where the onus lies on the party seeking disclosure.

The respondents moved to stay an enforcement proceeding and requested the Tribunal issue summonses to five members of OSC Staff to testify at the stay motion hearing.

The respondents sought evidence regarding the OSC's decision to include compelled evidence in a receivership application without a section 17 order.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in a previous motion for documentary disclosure, and that the respondents failed to establish a reasonable basis that the summonses would lead to relevant evidence of abusive conduct.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of an interlocutory disclosure decision made by the Capital Markets Tribunal.

The applicants sought to review the Tribunal's dismissal of their motion for additional disclosure, which they argued was necessary for their upcoming stay motions.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application was premature and that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting early intervention in the ongoing administrative proceedings.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought motions seeking further witness summaries from the respondents and the dismissal of the respondents' stay motions.

The respondents argued that the scheduling of these motions should be delayed pending their application for judicial review of a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal held that the judicial review application should not delay the proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled the motion for further witness summaries to be heard orally, treated Staff's motion to dismiss the stay motions as withdrawn, and set a schedule for the exchange of materials for the stay motions.

The respondents, David and Natasha Sharpe, brought a motion to adjourn their motions for a stay of proceedings, the merits hearing, and related filing dates until their judicial review application of a prior Tribunal decision is determined by the Divisional Court.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the pending judicial review application did not constitute an 'exceptional circumstance' under Rule 29(1) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal emphasized the public interest in proceeding expeditiously and noted that the mere filing of a judicial review application does not automatically warrant an adjournment.

The appellant, Heritage Preservation Holdings, appealed a judgment requiring it to close the sale of a hotel property and allowing a holdback for deficiencies.

The appeal raised three issues: contract formation, an implied term regarding the first mortgage amount, and responsibility for certain property deficiencies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the contract formation and implied term grounds, finding a binding agreement was formed and no such term could be implied.

However, the appeal was allowed in part regarding the deficiencies issue, specifically finding the appellant was not responsible for certain fire separation, kitchen exhaust, and fire suppression system deficiencies under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale's disclosure clause.

The holdback was maintained, but only for repairs for which the appellant was responsible.

On the eve of trial, the plaintiffs brought a motion for further documentary production and discovery after the defendants provided late answers to questions previously refused during examinations for discovery.

The defendants argued that issue estoppel applied due to previous unsuccessful refusals motions.

The court rejected the issue estoppel argument, finding that the defendants altered the litigation landscape by voluntarily providing the late answers.

The court ordered limited, file-specific documentary production relevant to the new answers, but denied broader discovery requests to avoid delaying the trial.