Joshua M. Shneer

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Oscar Furtado and his corporate entities defrauded investors in several real estate limited partnerships, traded securities without registration, and made misleading statements to the Commission.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that Furtado perpetrated a securities fraud in five ways, including failing to disclose his intent to profit from a property acquisition, redeeming units contrary to representations, and misusing assets of other partnerships.

The Tribunal also found that Furtado made misleading statements to the Commission during its investigation.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations that the respondents engaged in the business of trading securities without registration, finding they were raising capital for an underlying real estate business.

The applicants sought an order to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a New York Court in a U.S. securities class action, compelling production of documents from the respondent, a non-party Ontario corporation.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the requests were overly broad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome.

The court applied the Friction Division guideposts and granted the application on a narrowed basis, restricting the temporal scope of the production and establishing a staged process to manage the costs and burden of electronic document review.

The moving party, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., sought to set aside previous orders dismissing its motion for security for costs against the responding party, Active Security and Cable Inc., on the basis of fraud or newly discovered facts under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

Rogers alleged that an erroneous payment of over $876,000 and other newly discovered facts regarding Active Security's financial status warranted setting aside the orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the new evidence would not have likely altered the original decision, which relied primarily on a large CRA debt.

Furthermore, Rogers failed to prove fraudulent concealment and had made a tactical decision not to raise the new evidence during the appeal process.

The applicant brought a motion for production of documents.

During a case conference, the respondents' counsel advised of a scheduling conflict and requested time to ascertain the position of third parties.

The court found the third parties' involvement unnecessary for the motion, adjourned the motion by one day to accommodate counsel's schedule, and set a timetable for the respondents' factum.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application to bring a motion for production of further documentation after discovering the respondents made payments to third parties following a previously ordered injunction.

The court scheduled the motion for production of documents and set a timetable for the exchange of materials and cross-examinations.

The court also noted that if third parties consent, an order may be submitted to have the funds paid into court.

The applicant sought directions at a case conference regarding the respondents' failure to produce bank records as required by a prior court order.

The applicant claimed no statements were produced, while the respondents claimed full compliance.

The court directed the respondents to produce the unredacted bank statements relating to the receipt and disbursement of the funds in issue by a specified date, noting that a judge at a case conference has jurisdiction to make procedural and interlocutory orders under Rule 50.13(6).

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a defamation counterclaim brought by one of the defendants.

The court convened a case conference to determine whether partial summary judgment was appropriate, applying the factors from Malik v. Attia.

The court declined to schedule the summary judgment motion, finding that it would not make the proceeding appreciably cheaper and that there was a risk of inconsistent findings because the main action and the counterclaim shared factual issues regarding allegations of fraud.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 17, 2020, and to stay an order dated February 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion in a brief endorsement.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.