Aaron Dantowitz

Binance Holdings Limited appealed orders from the Divisional Court and Ontario Securities Commission regarding an investigation into Binance's operations in Ontario.

The Commission had issued a summons demanding production of documents and communications relating to alleged violations of the Securities Act.

Binance challenged the summons as unconstitutionally overbroad under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Divisional Court erred in declining to judicially review the Charter arguments and that the summons was an unreasonable seizure because it lacked a reasonable foundation to believe the demanded documents were relevant to the investigation.

The moving party, Binance Holdings Limited, sought an order under ss. 6(2) and (3) of the Courts of Justice Act to join two appeals: one to the Divisional Court from an OSC decision and another to the Court of Appeal from a Divisional Court decision.

Binance argued the appeals were "in the same proceeding" and combining them would serve the administration of justice.

The Ontario Securities Commission opposed, arguing the appeals were distinct and combining them would cause delay and bypass appellate hierarchy.

The court granted the motion, finding the appeals were in the same proceeding due to identical parties, facts, legal issues, and legal origin (investigation order and summons).

The court also found that combining the appeals would allow for a full and final resolution of the jurisdictional issue, mitigate the risk of inconsistent findings, and secure a just, expeditious, and least expensive determination of the issues.

A pharmacist challenged the Ontario College of Pharmacists' jurisdiction to prosecute discipline charges after the College failed to comply with mandatory statutory timelines for processing a written complaint under section 25 of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Instead, the College accepted the complainant's withdrawal and proceeded with a registrar-initiated investigation under section 75.

The Divisional Court quashed the charges, finding the College lost jurisdiction through non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that written complaints may be withdrawn when the College agrees and the matter proceeds through another statutory process with full procedural safeguards.

The court balanced the public interest in regulating the profession against the accused member's fair hearing rights, finding no procedural unfairness or prejudice to the respondent.

The Law Society of Upper Canada sought an injunction under the Law Society Act to prohibit a disbarred lawyer from providing legal services.

The Law Society alleged the respondent had violated the Act on at least two occasions, relying on client and investigator affidavits.

The respondent denied the allegations, presenting employee affidavits stating a licensed lawyer handled the client's file.

The court found the Law Society did not meet its burden of proof to establish a violation of the Act on a balance of probabilities, dismissing the application.

A pharmacist challenged the constitutionality of mandatory licence revocation provisions under the Health Professions Procedural Code after pleading guilty to sexual abuse of a patient based on a consensual sexual relationship.

The applicant argued the provisions were ultra vires the province because, in pith and substance, they regulated sexual morality and therefore fell within Parliament’s criminal law power.

The Superior Court held that the dominant purpose of the provisions was the protection of the public through the regulation of professional standards governing health care practitioners.

The provisions were therefore within the province’s jurisdiction over property and civil rights under s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court also held the Attorney General was estopped from challenging the court’s jurisdiction because the issue had already been determined in earlier proceedings.

Following a successful motion in which the action against one defendant was dismissed for lack of a real and substantial connection with Ontario, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $25,000, arguing the motion involved significant complexity, a substantial damages claim, and an extensive evidentiary record.

The plaintiffs contended the cross-examination conducted was proper and that a lower costs award was reasonable.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed a fair and reasonable amount rather than awarding actual costs incurred.

Partial indemnity costs of $21,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were awarded to the successful defendant.

The defendant, a resident and chief architect of the Ministry of Works and Engineering of Bermuda, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' conspiracy action against him on the grounds of state immunity and lack of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The plaintiffs, former Bermudian government officials, alleged the defendant conspired with an Ontario architect to plant altered cheques in government files to falsely implicate them in a kickback scheme.

The court found the defendant was not immune from suit due to the commercial activity exception under the State Immunity Act.

However, the court dismissed the action against the moving defendant, concluding that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as the plaintiffs failed to establish a real and substantial connection to the province.