Kevin Richard

The applicant brought a motion for a partial stay of a Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) disciplinary panel's sanctions decision pending a review application.

The applicant sought to stay his suspension as a registered representative and executive.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Capital Markets Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was refused.

The applicant's evidence of potential financial loss and loss of clients was deemed speculative and unconvincing.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents, as officers and/or directors of a publicly listed reporting issuer, authorized the company's failure to disclose their receipt of shares and report an acquisition as a related party transaction.

The parties reached settlement agreements wherein the respondents admitted to authorizing the non-compliance and agreed to significant financial penalties, disgorgement, and market bans.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlements, finding them reasonable, in the public interest, and sufficient for specific and general deterrence.

The appellants appealed a Capital Markets Tribunal decision finding they committed securities fraud by selling cryptocurrency tokens falsely represented as backed by gold bullion and misappropriating investor funds.

On appeal, they argued the Tribunal erred by admitting compelled interview transcripts, finding the tokens were securities, denying an adjournment, and imposing unfit sanctions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that compelled testimony is admissible in the same regulatory proceeding, the tokens met the test for an investment contract, and the Tribunal's factual findings and sanctions were reasonable and entitled to deference.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an application to enforce an oral agreement and the granting of an application for partition and sale of property.

The successful parties (Bruno Rosso, Nancy Rosso, and Salvatore Rosso) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale to Bruno and Nancy, and on a partial indemnity scale to Salvatore.

The court considered factors including the complete success of the parties, the complexity of the issues, the proportionality of costs to the property value, the reasonableness of counsel fees and time spent, and the conduct of the unsuccessful party during litigation.

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 court considered two competing applications between brothers who jointly owned a triplex property.

Domenic Rosso sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement for the purchase of Bruno Rosso’s one-third interest in the property, while Bruno Rosso sought partition and sale of the property.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral contract due to lack of agreement on essential terms, and that even if there had been, it would have been unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and not saved by part performance.

The court granted Bruno’s application for partition and sale, and ordered an accounting.

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 case involved a dispute between brothers Domenic, Salvatore, and Bruno Rosso, and their wives, concerning minutes of settlement.

Bruno moved to enforce the minutes, alleging Domenic breached them.

Domenic cross-moved to set aside the minutes, claiming duress, fraudulent misrepresentation, or improvidence, and also arguing they were null and void under a specific contractual clause.

The court found that Domenic and Carmelina (Domenic's wife and a "Settling Party") validly exercised their contractual right under the minutes of settlement to declare them null and void due to an uncured default.

The court dismissed Bruno's motion to enforce and granted Domenic's cross-motion to set aside the minutes of settlement on this contractual basis, rejecting Domenic's other claims of duress, misrepresentation, and improvidence due to lack of credible evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by DeFi Technologies Inc. against an order awarding Zach Justein and Joseph Weinberg 750,000 share options.

The options were granted by a unanimous board resolution, but later cancelled by management on the grounds that the recipients were not "consultants" under the stock option plan.

The application judge found that the board had the authority to determine eligibility and that the cancellation constituted a breach of contract and an oppression remedy.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the board's resolution made the respondents eligible, their reasonable expectations were defeated, and the damages calculation was appropriate, noting that the respondents were not required to attempt to exercise options after the agreement's repudiation.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in illegal distribution of securities, unregistered trading, securities fraud, and improper revenue recognition, the Capital Markets Tribunal determined the appropriate sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement totaling $4.91 million, administrative penalties totaling $3.175 million, and significant market restrictions, including permanent bans for the GBR parties and multi-year bans for the First Global parties.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to pay costs totaling $1,080,285, apportioned based on their respective roles and the time spent investigating and litigating the various contraventions.

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.

The applicants sought damages for the respondent's refusal to honour agreements granting them 750,000 stock options.

The respondent argued the applicants did not meet the eligibility requirements of its stock option plan.

The court found that the respondent's board of directors had validly approved the option grants and that the respondent's subsequent cancellation of the options defeated the applicants' reasonable expectations, constituting oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court awarded damages based on the value of the options, but declined to award punitive damages.

This decision concerns the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for leave to commence a secondary market securities class action and to certify the action.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, while the plaintiff argued for partial indemnity and a discount due to the alleged novel and public interest nature of the litigation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $693,805.39, finding no basis for substantial indemnity as there was no reprehensible conduct or unproven fraud allegations.

The court also rejected the argument for a discount under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, concluding that the issues were not novel or of broad public interest, particularly as they had been previously litigated.

A minor deduction was made for online research disbursements.

The applicants brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer questions refused on examination for discovery and to enforce a prior costs award.

The respondent paid the costs award two days before the hearing, rendering the enforcement aspect moot.

The court ordered the respondent to answer 15 of the refused questions and upheld 11 refusals, directing a follow-up examination by videoconference.

The court awarded the applicants full indemnity costs thrown away for the enforcement motion and partial indemnity costs for the divided success on the refusals motion, totaling $12,942.36.

This appeal addresses the role of "public correction" in secondary market misrepresentation class actions under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act.

The appellant sought leave to pursue a statutory remedy, which the motion judge denied by requiring a discrete and identifiable public correction that explicitly revealed the misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal, following its own decision in *Barrick OCA*, found that the motion judge applied an unduly onerous standard for public correction.

The Court clarified that public correction does not require "facial symmetry" with the misrepresentation and must be understood in context by the secondary market.

The appeal was allowed, and the leave motion remitted for redetermination.

Following a summary judgment with divided success, the parties sought a determination on interest and costs.

The court held that Marquest was entitled to the contractual interest rate of 15 percent on the promissory note, running until the date funds were received.

Regarding costs, the court balanced Marquest's contractual right to substantial indemnity costs for enforcing the note against Stone's substantial success on its more complex counterclaim.

The court awarded Stone $30,000 in partial indemnity costs, net of any costs Marquest was entitled to.

Marquest Asset Management Inc. sued Stone Investment Group Ltd. for unpaid amounts under a promissory note.

Stone counterclaimed for breach of a purchase agreement, seeking set-off.

Marquest moved for summary judgment on its claim and dismissal of Stone's counterclaim.

Stone opposed and sought summary judgment on its counterclaim.

The court granted Stone summary judgment on two issues of its counterclaim (Cooltech Debenture and nominal damages for TFSA filings) and dismissed a third (Withholding Taxes).

The court found Marquest breached the purchase agreement regarding the Cooltech Debenture and TFSA filings.

As the amount awarded to Stone on its counterclaim was less than the amount owed to Marquest on the note, the court granted Marquest summary judgment for the net amount.

The court also found Stone had a proper claim for equitable set-off.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the production of data, correspondence, and reports from two environmental consulting firms retained by the defendants.

The defendants claimed litigation privilege over the documents.

The court found that litigation was not the dominant purpose for the creation of the documents, as the parties were still working cooperatively to solve an environmental remediation issue at the time.

Furthermore, the court held that even if privilege existed, the defendants implicitly waived it by directing the plaintiff to share information directly with the consultants without advising that the process was privileged, and by claiming the consultants' costs in their counterclaim.

The motion for production was granted.

In an enforcement proceeding, the respondents objected to the Commission's intention to conduct the merits hearing by videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondents argued that a videoconference hearing would be unfair, slower, more expensive, and inadequate for assessing credibility.

The Commission held that proceeding by videoconference is consistent with the objective of conducting proceedings expeditiously and cost-effectively.

The respondents failed to establish that an electronic hearing would cause them significant prejudice under section 5.2(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Commission ordered the merits hearing to proceed by videoconference.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of an IIROC hearing panel's decisions on merits and sanctions.

The IIROC panel had found that the applicant engaged in personal financial dealings with a client and made false and misleading representations to his firm, resulting in a two-year suspension, fines, and disgorgement.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that while the IIROC panel erred in its analysis of the transition rules regarding a repealed rule, the rule remained applicable to the applicant's conduct.

The Commission found no other errors of law or incorrect principles in the IIROC panel's findings of fact, its conclusion that the applicant's statements were false and misleading, or its sanctions order.