Joseph Groia

The Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator recuse herself from the merits panel due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator had a social relationship with a key witness for the Commission, having previously worked with the witness's spouse and attended their wedding.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing that the capital markets community is small and such connections are common.

The adjudicator granted the motion and recused herself, finding that a reasonable person would conclude the social relationship could influence her assessment of the witness's credibility.

In an enforcement proceeding alleging false sales communications regarding ESG factors, the respondent Som Seif brought a motion for further disclosure and particulars.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion for disclosure, finding the requested correspondence with other fund managers and internal Commission documents irrelevant to the allegations.

The Tribunal also declined to order the Commission to produce a privilege log.

The motion for particulars was dismissed after the Commission undertook to clarify which specific statements Seif allegedly reviewed, edited, or provided quotes for, with the Tribunal finding the remaining allegations sufficiently particularized.

The appellants, holders of 2025 series senior secured notes, appealed the final order approving a CBCA plan of arrangement that restructured $270 million in pari passu senior secured notes issued in three series.

The arrangement extended the maturity dates of all notes and was approved by 75 percent of senior noteholders voting as one class, though only 20 percent of 2025 noteholders voted in favour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was moot because the plan had been implemented without a stay, and that it constituted a collateral attack on the interim order establishing the single-class voting classification, from which leave to appeal had already been denied.

The court further held that the application judge applied the correct test under s. 192 of the CBCA, made factual findings entitled to deference, and committed no reviewable error in finding the arrangement fair and reasonable or in dismissing the oppression remedy application.

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.

At a first case management hearing in an enforcement proceeding, the Capital Markets Tribunal declined to adopt the longer timetable proposed by the Ontario Securities Commission.

Emphasizing the statutory and procedural directives to ensure expeditious proceedings, the adjudicator largely accepted the respondents' proposed schedule and ordered the parties to provide availability for a merits hearing in 2026.

The plaintiff discontinued a proposed class action against the defendant, a discount brokerage firm, after the certification motion was adjourned.

The defendant sought costs for defending itself against the certification motion.

The plaintiff argued the costs were excessive and should be apportioned among the multiple defendants originally sued.

The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, reduced by approximately 25% to account for access to justice concerns in class action litigation.

The appellants appealed a judgment awarding them financial compensation rather than a 45 percent ownership interest in the respondent corporation under the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The appellants argued the application judge failed to give effect to their reasonable expectation that shares would be issued pursuant to a non-binding term sheet.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly considered the appellants' reasonable expectations, correctly concluded the term sheet was not a binding agreement to issue shares, and appropriately exercised his broad remedial discretion in awarding financial compensation instead of shares.

The decision concerns an application under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for approval of a plan of arrangement by The Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. and 16834434 Canada Inc., opposed by Murchinson Ltd. (on behalf of certain noteholders).

The court granted the final order approving the arrangement, which restructures the company’s senior notes, and dismissed Murchinson’s related oppression application.

The reasons address the fairness and reasonableness of the arrangement, the appropriateness of third-party releases, and the standing of Murchinson to bring an oppression claim.

The Applicants, The Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. and 16834434 Canada Inc., sought an interim order under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to approve a plan of arrangement and to direct the holding of a meeting of Senior Noteholders.

The Court granted the interim order, finding the Applicants acted in good faith and met the statutory requirements.

The Court also approved the classification of all Senior Noteholders as a single class for voting purposes, rejecting the respondent's argument for separate classes.

The order included a limited stay of proceedings and set out the process for the upcoming meeting and final order hearing.

The court considered costs following a mixed-success application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Although the applicants were awarded monetary relief, they failed on significant claims, including a request for 45% ownership and profits of the respondent corporation.

The court found success was divided and ordered each party to bear their own costs, referencing relevant offers to settle and prior case law on divided success.

This decision addresses cross-applications between two groups of real estate investors, led by David Civiero and Grant Alexander Hood, regarding the winding up or buy-sell/shotgun disposition of their jointly held corporations.

The court grants leave to add parties, converts the applications to actions, and orders transfer and consolidation with a related Toronto action, finding that the complexity and credibility issues require a full trial.

The applicants sought relief under the Ontario Business Corporations Act for payment of 45 percent of the value of PowerNorth Utility Contractors Inc., arising from previous business dealings.

The court found that the applicants were proper complainants under the Act and entitled to remedies, including repayment of investments and services provided.

The court calculated the amounts owed for cash investment, use of premises, equipment, and services, and awarded interest.

The total award was $399,441.90.

The court declined to order a share of profits and urged the parties to agree on costs, noting divided success.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents engaged in an illegal distribution of Canopy Growth Corporation shares and that Cormark and Kennedy failed to deal fairly, honestly, and in good faith with Canopy, or alternatively, acted contrary to the public interest.

The allegations centered on a series of transactions involving a private placement, a securities loan agreement, and short sales executed when Canopy was added to the TSX composite index.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed all allegations, finding that the transactions did not constitute an illegal distribution under the extended definition, Canopy was not a client of Cormark or Kennedy, and the respondents did not mislead Canopy or otherwise engage the Tribunal's public interest jurisdiction.

The Kahu Defendants moved to dismiss Park Lawn Corporation's action for knowing assistance as an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), arguing it was an improper attempt to re-litigate issues from a previously settled action against a former CEO.

The court denied the motion, finding that Park Lawn was not aware of the Kahu Defendants' alleged misconduct at the time of the previous settlement, the facts and causes of action were not identical, and the case law allows for several liability in knowing assistance claims, which was consistent with the terms of the prior release.

The court also clarified that a consent dismissal does not automatically lead to an abuse of process finding unless the issues could have been raised in the prior action.

This case involved a shareholder dispute where OneMove Capital Corporation sought to affirm the validity of its proposal under s. 99 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) to remove and replace a director, and to compel Dye & Durham Limited to include this proposal in its information circular.

Dye & Durham brought a counter-application to omit the proposal and sought a declaration that OneMove and Tyler Proud breached a 2020 Investor Rights Agreement (IRA).

The court ruled that a shareholder cannot use the s. 99 proposal mechanism to remove a director, as director removal requires a special meeting requisitioned under s. 105 of the OBCA.

However, the court also found that OneMove's proposal, if permissible, would not fall under the "personal grievance" exception of s. 99(5)(b) or (b.1), as it related significantly to the company's business affairs.

Furthermore, the court determined that the IRA did not prohibit OneMove from seeking to remove its nominee director through proper OBCA channels, and dismissed Dye & Durham's other alleged breaches of the IRA as theoretical.

This case addresses a corporate deadlock within AnalytixInsight Inc. (ALY) between two factions of its board of directors, stemming from serious allegations of misconduct, including insider tipping, self-dealing, and material non-disclosure, against the former CEO and his allies.

The Applicant Faction sought an investigation under the Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and oppression remedy relief.

The court found a prima facie case of oppressive and dishonest conduct by the Respondent Faction, warranting immediate interim intervention.

An inspector was ordered to investigate the allegations, and the alleged wrongdoers were temporarily precluded from board participation, with an interim board appointed to ensure company functionality.

The defendants moved to amend their statement of defence to plead issue estoppel and abuse of process based on a prior US arbitration award, and to dismiss the plaintiff's action on those grounds.

The plaintiff cross-moved to add the defendants' parent company as a party.

The court granted the defendants' motion to amend and dismissed the plaintiff's breach of contract and negligence claims, finding they were barred by issue estoppel as the arbitrator had already decided the core factual issues against the plaintiff.

However, the court refused to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding those issues were not determined in the arbitration.

The plaintiff's motion to add the parent company was dismissed as premature and legally untenable.

The plaintiffs sold their business, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., to the defendants.

Disputes arose regarding options to purchase the lands on which the business operated, post-closing adjustments, and the conduct of the parties' shared accountant.

The court found that the accountant breached professional and contractual duties by acting in a conflict of interest.

The court also held that the defendants' counterclaim for post-closing adjustments was not time-barred.

Specific performance was granted to the defendants for the optioned lands, subject to certain severance conditions.

The plaintiffs, Grant A. Hood Holdings Inc. and Grant A. Hood, brought a motion seeking unfettered access to the books and records of Hodero Holdings Ltd. and Cade Management Ltd., including real-time online access to QuickBooks, source documents, and the Hodero email server, as well as further affidavits of documents from the defendants.

The court granted real-time QuickBooks access with shared costs, allowed on-site inspection of hard copy source documents with shared conversion costs, but denied broad access to the Hodero email server, finding no legitimate business need and that the request was disproportionate.

The court also denied immediate orders for further affidavits of documents and cross-examination on them, emphasizing ongoing disclosure obligations.

Portions of an affidavit related to arbitration confidentiality were struck.

The respondent, Marc Judah Bistricer, brought a motion seeking additional disclosure from Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding documents obtained during its investigation.

Staff alleged that the respondents engaged in abusive short selling and other transactions contrary to the animating principles of the Securities Act.

Bistricer sought documents relating to similar transactions by others and all materials obtained under section 11 investigation orders.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the disclosure request was too vague and imprecise.

Furthermore, even interpreting the request generously, the Tribunal held that the requested documents were irrelevant, as the standard for the respondents' conduct is not determined by the prevalence of similar conduct by others in the market, and Staff's disclosure obligation does not extend to all materials obtained during an investigation.