Jonathan Wansbrough

The appellant, a former chairman of a publicly traded cannabis company, appealed decisions of the Capital Markets Tribunal finding he breached the prohibition against tipping material non-public information under s. 76(2) of the Securities Act and imposing sanctions.

The appellant had shared draft transaction documents with a personal friend and business colleague.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the appellant bore the onus of proving the disclosure was in the 'necessary course of business' (NCOB), that the NCOB test is purely objective, and that the disclosure was not necessary.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's argument that an objective NCOB test unjustifiably infringed his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, finding any infringement was justified under s. 1.

The appeal against the merits and sanctions decisions was dismissed.

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 plaintiffs in a class action against Kew Media Group Inc. and several individual defendants sought consent orders to streamline the litigation.

The corporate defendant was in insolvency proceedings with a stay in place.

The plaintiffs agreed to discontinue the action against five individual defendants, hold the case in abeyance against two others, and toll applicable limitation periods.

The court granted the consent orders for discontinuance, leave to proceed under the Securities Act, and certification under the Class Proceedings Act against the remaining individual defendants, finding the agreements made the case more efficient without adversely affecting class members.

The plaintiffs in a proposed securities class action brought a motion for approval of a third-party Adverse Costs Indemnity and Funding Agreement with Camac Partners LLC.

The agreement provided up to $800,000 in adverse costs indemnity and $125,000 in disbursement funding in exchange for 10% of the net recovery, capped at $4 million.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court approved the agreement, finding its terms fair, reasonable, and necessary to provide access to justice for the plaintiffs and the proposed class.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking her statement of claim as an abuse of process and denying leave to amend.

The appellant alleged the respondents orchestrated the wrongful conviction of her father and his company by the Ontario Securities Commission, causing her financial loss as a trust beneficiary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions that the action was an abuse of process and that the appellant lacked standing, as the underlying convictions had already been upheld on appeal.

The defendants moved under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a consent judgment on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud.

They alleged that the plaintiff lender had agreed to hold the consent judgment in escrow and not enforce it, and raised additional arguments concerning the validity of default interest under the Interest Act.

The court held that Rule 59.06 is limited to circumstances where fraud in obtaining the judgment is established and does not permit the court to revisit the correctness of the judgment itself.

The defendants failed to prove that any representation was made that the consent judgment would not be enforced, and the alleged oral arrangement was inconsistent with the written agreements and the parties’ conduct.

The motion was dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the defendants.

Following a partially successful Rule 21 motion to strike pleadings, the moving defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The responding plaintiffs argued costs should be in the cause due to mixed success and that the amount sought was excessive.

The court applied the discretionary principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although success was mixed, the defendants achieved significant success by striking entire causes of action.

The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting that the defendants were not entirely successful.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim in a franchise dispute.

In an earlier endorsement, the court struck certain portions while permitting others to proceed.

This addendum clarified additional paragraphs that the parties had agreed should be struck prior to the motion argument but which were not listed in the original endorsement.

The struck portions related to unsupported claims against individual defendants, including negligence, breach of contract, statutory duties under franchise legislation, and claims for injunctive relief and lost opportunity damages.

The court confirmed that the listed portions of the Statement of Claim were struck in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim in a franchise dispute.

The plaintiffs, franchisees of a Cora restaurant, alleged misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of the Arthur Wishart Act after the franchisor opened another location nearby.

The court struck the breach of contract and negligence claims without leave to amend, finding they contradicted the express terms of the franchise agreement which granted no exclusive territory.

The misrepresentation claims were struck with leave to amend for lack of particularity.

The claims under the Arthur Wishart Act and for injunctive relief were allowed to proceed.