Laura Thistle

A payment processing company appealed sanctions imposed after it was found in civil contempt for repeatedly obstructing a court-ordered audit obtained by mandatory injunction under a commercial services agreement.

The appellant argued the penalties were disproportionate, challenged the direction to pay audit costs into court, and sought leave to appeal the contempt-motion costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the arguments depended on unappealed factual findings that the appellant intentionally obstructed the audit and that no basis existed to interfere with the sanctions or the costs order.

The court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that r. 60.11(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not confined to cases where the officer or director has already been found personally in contempt, and remitted the issue of joint and several liability of the sole officer and director for redetermination.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Peoples Trust Company (PTC) to partially lift the automatic stay of a penalty order requiring PSP Services Inc. (PSP) to pay $1,998,612.07 into court, pending appeal.

The court reviewed the context and the three-part test for lifting a stay, finding that all factors weighed in favour of granting the motion.

The stay was lifted, and PSP was ordered to pay the funds into court.

Costs were set at $7,500.

The court considered the appropriate penalty for PSP Services Inc.'s contempt of court for failing to cooperate with an audit as required by contract and court orders.

The court found repeated, prolonged, and unremedied contempt, and ordered the appointment of Ernst & Young as investigative receiver, required PSP to pay increased audit costs into court, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to Peoples Trust Company.

The plaintiff, Peoples Trust Company, brought a motion for a finding that the defendant, PSP Services Inc., was in contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders requiring cooperation with an audit and the deconversion process following the termination of their Acquiring Services and Sponsorship Agreement.

The court found that PSP intentionally frustrated and delayed the audit process, failed to comply with orders to provide documentation, and did not cooperate with the deconversion process.

The court found PSP liable for civil contempt, declined to appoint an investigative receiver at this stage, and reserved the issue of penalty and costs to a later hearing.

The plaintiff, an acquirer bank, sought an interlocutory mandatory injunction to enforce its contractual right to audit the defendant, a payment operator, after the defendant terminated their agreement and invoked a de-conversion process.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for a mandatory injunction requiring the plaintiff to release funds it had moved from settlement accounts to reserve accounts, alleging breach of trust.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding a strong prima facie case that the audit right survived during de-conversion and that the loss of the right constituted irreparable harm.

The defendant's cross-motion was dismissed as it failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, and there was no basis to find the settlement accounts were trust funds.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action against Binance for illegal sales of cryptocurrency derivative products without registration or prospectus, contrary to the Ontario Securities Act and common law.

The court granted certification, finding a recognizable cause of action, an identifiable class, and common issues suitable for class-wide determination, including liability and remedies like rescission and aggregate damages.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the mechanical impossibility of rescission and the unfeasibility of aggregate damages, noting a lack of factual basis for their claims of user-to-user contracts.

This case involved two consolidated applications concerning the Estate of William R. Harper.

The primary dispute was over the beneficiary designation of a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) and a Life Income Fund (LIF) held with National Bank Financial Inc. (NBF).

Erin Forsyth claimed to be the beneficiary of both, based on a disputed beneficiary designation form.

Dona Jean Murphy, as Estate Trustee, argued the Estate was the beneficiary and challenged Forsyth's designation on grounds of undue influence and lack of capacity.

The court found the disputed form valid for the RRSP only, designating Forsyth as beneficiary, and dismissed claims of undue influence and lack of capacity.

The LIF was determined to be part of the Estate.

The appellant, Omar Kanama, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that upheld a Community Treatment Order (CTO) issued by Dr. Ian Weinroth.

The CTO was issued after Mr. Kanama's previous CTO lapsed due to administrative error, and he was subsequently assessed for capacity without proper advance notice or full disclosure of his rights.

The Board's majority found no prejudice despite procedural failures, while the dissenting member argued the process was unfair and violated Charter values.

The Superior Court found the assessment process to be procedurally unfair due to multiple failures by the healthcare team, including lack of proper notice, misleading communication through the mother, and delayed provision of mandatory forms.

The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, especially for vulnerable individuals, and held that the Board erred in treating procedural fairness as a discretionary matter.

The appeal was allowed, and the CTO was set aside.