5 total
Leave to appeal arbitral awards denied; alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law.
The applicants sought leave to appeal or to set aside three arbitral awards arising from a family business dispute over the separation of the G&L Group.
The respondent brought a cross-application to enforce the awards.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the alleged errors of law were in fact questions of fact or mixed fact and law, and that the arbitrator's conduct was not procedurally egregious.
The court granted the respondent's application to enforce the arbitral awards and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.
Costs of appeal apportioned at $15,000 each to three respondents.
Following the release of the Court's decision on the appeal, submissions were received regarding the apportionment of costs.
The Court fixed costs of the appeal payable to the Receiver, the respondent 100 Ontario Inc., and the respondent Issam A. Saad, each in the amount of $15,000.
The court upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to re-open a receivership auction process following a substantially higher late offer.
The appellant entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with a court-appointed receiver to purchase real estate.
The receiver brought a motion for approval and vesting.
However, late-breaking offers emerged, including one 37% higher than the appellant's offer.
The motion judge declined to approve the sale and instead ordered a six-day extension of the bidding process.
The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge misapplied the principles from Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly exercised discretion in reopening the auction process given the magnitude of the late offer and the receiver's alternative recommendation.
Injunction Motion dismissed
The plaintiff, a pharmacy, sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reinstate its billing services agreement with the defendant, a pharmacy benefits manager, after the defendant terminated the agreement for cause following an audit.
The court found the injunction sought was mandatory, requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.
The court determined the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, as the defendant acted within its contractual rights and the plaintiff's potential damages were quantifiable.
The motion was dismissed.
Receiver appointed over $90 million in frozen assets of respondents alleged to have operated a fraudulent forex trading scheme.
The Ontario Securities Commission applied to appoint a receiver over the property of the respondents, who allegedly engaged in a fraudulent foreign exchange trading scheme.
The respondents had collected over USD $310 million in registration fees from customers who believed they were trading in a live market, when in fact they were trading in a simulated environment controlled by the respondents.
The court found a prima facie case of fraud and determined that appointing a receiver was appropriate for the due administration of Ontario securities law to manage and preserve approximately USD $90 million in frozen assets.
