Christophe Shammas

The appellant contractor registered a construction lien against the respondent's property but failed to perfect it by registering a certificate of action in a timely manner.

The motions judge declared the lien expired and vacated it pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Construction Act, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the appellant.

On appeal, the Divisional Court affirmed the decision, holding that the failure to perfect a lien is a statutory breach that cannot be cured by procedural rules or equitable doctrines.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim determination made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without prejudice to either party seeking leave for judicial review once a final determination is made.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for $78,600, alleging breach of an oral contract to provide immigration services to a third party.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid immigration services, an unpaid loan, and unpaid rent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding his evidence and that of his witnesses lacked credibility and documentary support.

The court also dismissed the defendant Depinderdeep Singh's counterclaims for lack of documentary evidence.

However, the court granted the defendant Monisha Singh's counterclaim for unpaid rent in the amount of $16,400, based on a written lease agreement.

The applicants, a minority shareholder and its principal, sought an oppression remedy against the majority shareholder and his holding company in a family-owned transportation business.

The court found that the majority shareholder unfairly disregarded the applicants' interests by excluding the individual applicant from management, terminating his employment, paying excessive compensation to himself and his spouse, and improperly deducting expenses from the minority shareholder's dividends.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the minority shares for $1,592,000 based on a February 2019 valuation and to pay $80,902.67 in compensation for unpaid dividends.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for breaching a share purchase agreement, arguing the respondents misrepresented the condition of the equipment.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for contribution and indemnity against a third-party corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the agreement contained no misrepresentation regarding the equipment.

The cross-appeal was allowed and remitted to the motion judge because no reasons were provided for dismissing the third-party claim.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that they engaged in insider trading after receiving material non-public information from an administrative assistant at an investment bank.

The Commission relied on circumstantial evidence, including the proximity of telephone calls to highly profitable trades.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Commission's inferences were reasonable and that the use of compelled examination transcripts was procedurally fair.

The Court also upheld the sanctions, which included trading bans, administrative penalties, and disgorgement orders.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for an inter-jurisdictional order against the respondent under subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act, based on a prior decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The BCSC had found that the respondent engaged in unregistered trading, made prohibited representations, and perpetrated a fraud on investors in relation to foreign exchange trading.

The Commission found that the statutory criteria were met and that it was in the public interest to protect Ontario investors by imposing permanent market bans mirroring the BCSC order.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent under subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act, based on a prior decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC).

The BCSC had found that the respondent perpetrated a fraud on an investor and traded without registration, permanently banning him from British Columbia's capital markets.

The Commission found that the BCSC order met the requirements of subsection 127(10) and that it was in the public interest to protect Ontario investors by imposing reciprocal sanctions.

The Commission ordered permanent bans on the respondent trading in securities, acting as a registrant, and serving as a director or officer of any issuer or registrant in Ontario.