Lawrence E. Thacker

The appellants sought to overturn Tribunal decisions refusing production of documents for abuse of process stay motions and denying a stay of securities enforcement proceedings arising from unlawful disclosure of compelled examination evidence in related receivership proceedings.

Applying appellate standards of review and the abuse of process framework, the court held that the Tribunal did not err in requiring a threshold showing for disclosure, in refusing to adopt the criminal-law summary dismissal threshold from Haevischer, or in concluding there was no tenable abuse of process case warranting disclosure.

The court further held that the unlawful disclosure, while serious, did not establish prejudice to trial fairness or to the integrity of the justice system that would be manifested, perpetuated, or aggravated by continuing the enforcement hearing, and that the grave public interest in adjudicating the securities fraud allegations strongly weighed against a stay.

One sanction issue succeeded only to correct the joint and several disgorgement amount from $2 million to $1.965 million.

The Trustee of the Alexander Morris Sharpe Trust sought the court's advice and directions on whether legal fees for David and Natasha Sharpe could be paid from the trust, which was established for the "sole and exclusive" benefit of their minor son, Alexander Morris Sharpe.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed, arguing the trust language was clear and restrictive.

The court ruled that the trust funds could not be used to pay the legal fees, as such payments would not be for the "sole and exclusive" benefit of the minor beneficiary, even if there was a collateral benefit.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings in a class action alleging a multi-bank conspiracy to fix gold and silver prices and engage in 'spoofing'.

The motion judge had found the proposed amendments time-barred or improper for joinder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by treating amendments as new causes of action when they were alternative theories based on existing facts, and by misapplying the 'actual knowledge' standard for limitation periods.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of JP Morgan's joinder, concluding that the CFTC order did not preclude conspiratorial spoofing allegations.

The amendments were allowed, with the possibility for some respondents to plead a limitations defence at trial.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from terminating an agreement for the supply of water and wastewater treatment services.

The defendant had threatened to terminate the services on 60 days' notice unless the plaintiffs paid a massive retroactive price increase.

The court found that the injunction was prohibitory, but that the plaintiffs had met the higher standard of a strong prima facie case regardless.

The court held that the defendant's use of the termination clause to extort a unilateral price increase was a strong prima facie breach of the duty of good faith performance.

Finding irreparable harm and a balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs, the court granted the injunction for nine months to allow the plaintiffs to build their own water recycling facilities.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) brought a motion seeking an order for the issuance of Letters of Request in Commissions under section 152 of the Securities Act.

The OSC required evidence from two individuals, one residing in British Columbia and one in Massachusetts, USA, for a proceeding before the Capital Markets Tribunal concerning Bridging Finance Inc. and its respondents.

The respondents did not oppose the motion.

The court granted the order, finding that the proposed witnesses had relevant evidence and that the Letters of Request and Commissions accorded with Rule 34.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents moved to stay an enforcement proceeding and requested the Tribunal issue summonses to five members of OSC Staff to testify at the stay motion hearing.

The respondents sought evidence regarding the OSC's decision to include compelled evidence in a receivership application without a section 17 order.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in a previous motion for documentary disclosure, and that the respondents failed to establish a reasonable basis that the summonses would lead to relevant evidence of abusive conduct.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of an interlocutory disclosure decision made by the Capital Markets Tribunal.

The applicants sought to review the Tribunal's dismissal of their motion for additional disclosure, which they argued was necessary for their upcoming stay motions.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the application was premature and that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting early intervention in the ongoing administrative proceedings.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought motions seeking further witness summaries from the respondents and the dismissal of the respondents' stay motions.

The respondents argued that the scheduling of these motions should be delayed pending their application for judicial review of a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal held that the judicial review application should not delay the proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled the motion for further witness summaries to be heard orally, treated Staff's motion to dismiss the stay motions as withdrawn, and set a schedule for the exchange of materials for the stay motions.

The respondent, former Chief Compliance Officer of Bridging Finance Inc., brought a motion for an expedited or separate merits hearing regarding the allegations against him, citing financial constraints.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and other respondents opposed the motion.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the allegations against the moving party were inextricably intertwined with those against the other respondents, and that his proposed mechanisms would not result in a just, expeditious, and cost-effective proceeding.

The respondents David and Natasha Sharpe brought motions to stay the enforcement proceeding, alleging abuse of process related to the Commission's use of compelled evidence without a section 17 order.

The Tribunal held a scheduling hearing and determined that the stay motions should be heard before the merits hearing, as the potential efficiencies outweighed the risk of duplicated effort.

The Tribunal also declined to delay the stay motions pending the outcome of a related judicial review application, citing the public interest in proceeding expeditiously.

A schedule was set for the disclosure motions, stay motions, and the merits hearing.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs recovered $87,917 on a $15 million claim for breach of a royalty agreement, the court determined costs and interest.

The defendants had made a $400,000 offer to settle just prior to trial.

The court found the plaintiffs were successful on only one issue and failed to accept a reasonable offer.

Applying Rule 49.13, the court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendants partial indemnity costs thereafter.

This resulted in a net costs award of $177,905.99 payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at the Courts of Justice Act rate.

The Receiver brought an unopposed motion for a Claims and Unitholdings Identification Order and for approval of its activities as described in its 12th Report.

The court found the proposed order practical and reasonable to assist the Receiver with the distribution process.

The motion was granted and the Receiver's activities were approved.

The Receiver brought a motion for an order approving an interim cash distribution of $78 million to the two institutional unitholders in Bridging SMA 2 LP.

The court found it appropriate to make an interim distribution but reduced the amount to $46 million to account for the potential impact of substantively consolidating the various Bridging Funds, an issue that had yet to be determined.

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.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation over negative online reviews regarding window installation.

Faced with an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiffs attempted to discontinue the action.

The court held that the statutory stay under s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act was triggered when the defendants delivered a requisition to attend Civil Practice Court, rendering the discontinuance ineffective.

Applying the Pointes framework, the court found the reviews related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs failed to show there were no valid defences, and the action was a SLAPP suit brought for an improper purpose.

The action was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $164,186.76 in full indemnity costs and $2,500 in damages.

The Receiver brought a motion for an order approving a proposed sale and investment solicitation process (SISP) and authorizing the disclosure of Borrower Information to Qualified Bidders.

The court found that the proposed SISP satisfied the test for approval, as it was fair, transparent, and optimized the chances of securing the best price.

The court also authorized the disclosure of Borrower Information, finding that the best interests of investors could be jeopardized without such disclosure, and noting that all borrower concerns had been resolved and confidentiality obligations would apply to bidders.

The motion was granted.

The Osgoode Investor Protection Clinic sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning the interpretation of the Securities Act, specifically "public corrections" and the test for leave for secondary market misrepresentation claims.

The appellant took no position, while the respondents opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Clinic's proposed arguments essentially mirrored those of the appellant and that its close relationship with the appellant's counsel undermined the appearance of impartiality required for a "friend of the court" thus failing to demonstrate a useful contribution without causing injustice or imbalance.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, specifically seeking the production of her counsel's entire litigation file.

The defendants argued the file was relevant to quantifying damages, which they claimed was an essential element of the plaintiff's bad faith action against her insurer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a claim for punitive damages arising from a breach of the duty of good faith does not require proof of a distinct monetary loss.

Consequently, the requested documents were deemed irrelevant to the matters in issue.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $17 million settlement, a distribution protocol, and class counsel fees in a certified class action regarding prepaid payment cards.

The action alleged the defendants breached gift card regulations under the Consumer Protection Act by seizing expired balances and charging unauthorized fees.

After a summary judgment was granted in part and appealed by both parties, a settlement was reached.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the distribution protocol and class counsel's fee request of 30% of the settlement amount.

The plaintiff, a shareholder of the corporate defendant, sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act following the collapse of a tailings storage facility at the defendant's mine.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant knew or ought to have known of the facility's compromised structural stability and failed to disclose it.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a public correction of the alleged misrepresentation.

The press release issued by the defendant merely stated that the facility had breached and the cause was unknown, which did not indicate that any previous disclosure was untrue or misleading.