Carlo DiCarlo

The applicants, who lost $150 million investing in Concordia International Corp., applied for a Norwich Order against the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

They sought trading data and client identities to identify short-sellers they believed conspired to illegally manipulate Concordia's share price.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the applicants had a bona fide potential claim for civil conspiracy, they failed to satisfy the other criteria for a Norwich Order.

Specifically, IIROC's role as a regulator did not constitute being 'mixed up' in the wrongdoing, the applicants already had sufficient information to pursue claims, and balancing IIROC's regulatory duties and privacy interests against the applicants' interests favoured denying the order.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment claiming the defendant breached a non-solicitation covenant in a share purchase agreement by accepting former clients at his new firm.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on a counterclaim for payment of a $400,000 promissory note.

The court found the restrictive covenant did not prohibit the mere acceptance of former clients who transferred their accounts independently without encouragement.

The court also granted judgment on the promissory note, finding no legal or equitable set-off available, but stayed execution of the judgment pending the resolution of the main action.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence action on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs, who held a second mortgage, alleged the defendants failed to serve them with a notice of sale when the first mortgage went into default.

The court found that the plaintiffs discovered the damage when they were served with a statement of claim in a related action, which occurred more than two years before they commenced their claim.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed with costs.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for negligence as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs, second mortgagees, alleged the defendants failed to serve them with a notice of sale when the first mortgage went into default.

The court found that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known they suffered damage and were worse off by September 2012, when they were served with a statement of claim in a related action.

As the plaintiffs commenced their action in January 2015, more than two years after discovering the claim, the action was dismissed as statute-barred.