Joseph Groia

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the proceeding against them on the basis that it was commenced outside the six-year limitation period under section 129.1 of the Securities Act.

Staff alleged a course of conduct involving unregistered trading and illegal distributions that culminated in sales to broker dealers prior to the limitation date, but argued that subsequent receipt of proceeds and certain private share transfers brought the conduct within the limitation period.

The Commission held that the subsequent events were not integral to the alleged wrongdoing and that the Statement of Allegations contained no separate allegations of wrongdoing for events after the limitation date.

The motion was granted and the proceeding dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion before the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the motion and ordered no costs, as the responding party did not request them.

The appellant appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding he acted as an unregistered adviser and imposing sanctions, including a $300,000 costs order, for failing to disclose conflicts of interest while recommending securities at investment seminars.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was reasonableness for the merits and public interest findings.

The court upheld the Commission's findings that the appellant was in the business of advising and that his failure to disclose conflicts was contrary to the public interest.

However, the court found the Commission's process for determining the $300,000 costs award was procedurally unfair and remitted the costs issue back to the Commission.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought to extend a temporary order suspending the respondent's registration and cease trading his securities pending a hearing on the merits.

The respondent did not oppose the registration suspension but sought to vary the cease trade order to allow trading in NASDAQ and over-the-counter markets.

The Commission found that the existing permissible trading areas covered a substantial proportion of North American securities and declined to expand them.

The temporary order was extended on its existing terms until July 31, 2004, or the commencement of the hearing.

The prosecution appealed the dismissal of its application for prohibition and certiorari to halt a securities prosecution.

The prosecution alleged the trial judge lost jurisdiction by interfering with its case presentation, failing to rule on evidence admissibility, and failing to restrain uncivil attacks by defence counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge has inherent trial management power to direct the order of evidence and defer evidentiary rulings.

While defence counsel's conduct was uncivil and improper, the trial judge's response did not deprive him of jurisdiction or prevent a fair trial.

The appellants appealed from a judgment granting summary judgment and dismissing a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that there were triable issues regarding margin requirements, the respondent's conduct, and the 'Know Your Client Rule'.

The court also set aside the default judgment against one of the appellants, finding an arguable defence on the merits regarding undue influence and the respondent's obligation to ensure she understood the indemnity.

In a securities-related class proceeding arising from alleged fraudulent statements about Indonesian gold reserves, the appellants challenged the refusal to certify negligent misrepresentation while conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, and Competition Act claims had been certified.

The court held that there was no principled basis to distinguish fraudulent from negligent misrepresentation at the certification stage, given the overlap in common factual and legal issues and the low threshold for common issues under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court further held that, where three related claims were already proceeding as a class action, it was sensible and efficient to include negligent misrepresentation on the same litigation track.

The appeal was allowed and the certification order amended accordingly.

The appellants appealed a decision certifying a class action regarding the Bre-X gold mine fraud.

The motion judge had restricted the common issues to conspiracy and fraud, declining to certify negligent misrepresentation as a common issue, and limited the class to shareholders who held shares on the date the possible fraud was publicly disclosed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that negligent misrepresentation claims require individual inquiries into reliance and causation, making a class action not the preferable procedure for those claims.

The court also upheld the temporal restriction on the class, as shareholders who sold before the disclosure date could not have suffered losses caused by the misrepresentations.